“有限的整体主义”:非法证据排除程序中的证据评价方式  

Quasi-Holism: The Model of Evidence Evaluation in the Process of Excluding Illegally-Obtained Evidence

作　　者：牟绿叶[1] Mou Lvye

机构地区：[1]浙江大学光华法学院

出　　处：《法制与社会发展》2021年第6期154-177,共24页Law and Social Development

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“刑事二审程序的多元发展和完善路径研究”(20YJC820035)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：在我国非法证据排除规则的立法和实务中,法官遵循"相互印证"的论证逻辑审查判断证据的合法性。这种逻辑在本质上是以印证结果回溯性地判定证据的资格,不利于非法证据的准确认定和排除。比较法分析和经验性研究表明,非法证据排除程序中的证据评价方式应当坚持"有限的整体主义"。"有限的整体主义"虽然源于两大法系证据评价模型中的"原子主义"和"整体主义",却是结合我国非法证据排除的法律规范和实务经验而被总结出的概念。"有限的整体主义"表现为"原子场"和"证据环"模型,法官只能审查判断"原子场"内与认定"刑讯逼供等非法方法"直接相关的证据和事实,而不能考量供述的内容、供述在全案证据体系中的作用、犯罪的严重性等其他因素。明确可以考量的因素能够在实体层面限定证据评价的范围,同时,"以审判为中心"的改革能为实现"有限的整体主义"提供程序层面的支持。In China’s legislation and practice of excluding illegally-obtained evidence, judges are employing the logic of "mutual corroboration" to review the legality of disputed evidence. In essence, this logic is to verify the admissibility of evidence according to the result of corroboration, and thus is not conducive to find out and exclude the illegally-obtained evidence. Comparative and empirical studies have indicated that the evaluative model in the process of excluding evidence shall be "quasi-holism". It origins from the "atomism" and "holism" in common law and civil law system, but bespeaks China’s own concept and theory summarized from norms and practice. Two concrete models of quasi-holism are "atomistic domain" and "evidentiary chain", which urge judges to consider the facts and evidence closely related to the "torture and other illegal means" within the atomistic domain. Contents of confession, importance of confession within entire case, seriousness of crime and other factors are prohibited to be considered. Identifying the factors available to judges for consideration can set up the substantive boundaries of evidence evaluation, and today’s trial-centered reform can provide supporting mechanism for realizing the quasi-holism.

关 键 词：非法证据 原子主义 整体主义 有限的整体主义 证据评价 

分 类 号：D925.2[政治法律—诉讼法学]