论我国刑事庭审证明实质化改革的双轨式路径  

On the Double-track Path of the Reform ofEssentialism of Criminal Judicial Proof in China

作　　者：林海伟 LIN Haiwei(School of Criminal Justice,China University of Political Science and Law,Beijing 100088,China)

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学刑事司法学院,北京100088

出　　处：《浙江工商大学学报》2024年第4期64-74,共11页Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目“平台社会多边强制性措施的规制研究”(23YJC820019)。

摘　　要：我国当前的刑事庭审证明实质化改革呈现以卷证为媒介的证明与以庭审为场域的证明并行的双轨模式,既保留侦查卷证与庭审的紧密联系,又希望通过强化庭审尤其是各类证人出庭作证,落实直接言词原则,实现证据信息的增量,削弱侦查卷证的影响。双轨模式存在结构性、阶段性、技术性与方法论等层面的正当性基础。问题在于侦查卷证侵蚀传唤证人出庭作证的决定,证人出庭正常化难以实现,以庭审为场域的证明模式受到以卷证为媒介的证明模式之干扰。作为保留卷证的代偿,改革的重心应向以庭审为场域的证明进一步倾斜,包括传唤证人出庭要件由职权主导转向诉权驱动,构建证人不出庭作证时对笔录证据的采证规则,落实国家在强制出庭作证、证人保护等方面的责任等。The double-track model,the reform path of essentialism of criminal judicial proof in China,includes proof mode by case-file and proof mode in court.The reform retains the close connection between investigation case-file and trial,but also aims to realize the increment of evidence information and weaken the influence of investigation case-file by strengthening trial,especially promoting all kinds of witnesses to testify in court.The double-track model has its legitimacy basis of structure,stage,technology and methodology.The core problem is that the investigation case-file corrodes the decision of summoning witnesses to testify in court and the normalization of witnesses testifying in court is difficult to realize.As a result,the proof mode in court is entangled with the proof mode by case-file.As the compensation for the retention of investigation case-file,the reform focus should be further inclined to the proof mode in court.Firstly,the elements of summoning witnesses to testify in court should be turned from jurisdiction-led to litigation-driven.Secondly,rules should be established for taking pretrial testimony when the witness does not testify in court.Thirdly,the responsibility of the state should be implemented in compulsory testimony and witness protection.

关 键 词：庭审实质化 证明实质化 侦查卷证 直接言词原则 

分 类 号：DF73[政治法律—诉讼法学]