交叉询问制度研究

【作者】 易雪琴；

【导师】 徐静村；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法律， 2003， 硕士

【摘要】 交叉询问是英美法系的重要审判制度和证据规则，是当事人主义对抗制诉讼模式中最具特色的制度之一。我国现行刑事诉讼法向对抗制诉讼模式迈出了一大步，将刑事庭审的主导权赋予了控辩双方，最高人民法院的相关司法解释初步规定了交叉询问的顺序和规则。但因我国现行立法的相关规定过于简单，加上法学界对我国是否引进了交又询问制度存在较大分歧，以及实务部门的思维和行为惯性，我国刑事庭审中的交叉询问制度形同虚设。在我国致力于改革刑事庭审方式的今天，深入探讨交叉询问制度的法学理念和程序规则，寻求建立适合我国国情的交叉询问制度具有重要意义。本文分四部分，约45800字。 本文第一部分对英美法系国家的交叉询问制度进行了概述，包括交叉询问的概念、运作程序、主要规则以及交叉询问制度的不同模式及其在国外的运行状况。本部分致力于对交叉询问制度进行全面、清晰的介绍，以与我国作比较，并为我国的改革完善提供参照。 本文第二部分阐述了交叉询问制度的观念基础和司法前提，认为交叉询问制度以程序正义和人权保障观念、相对哲学和公平竞争观念为观念基础，以对抗式宏观诉讼体制、不同诉讼角色的明确定位、律师辩护职能的充分发挥、高素质的法律家群体、证人出庭作证、审前准备程序的设置等为司法前提。本部分的阐述旨在为我国传统司法观念的改造以及新制度的有效运行提供思路。本部分还对陪审制以及区分证人类型的问题进行了阐述，认为交叉询问制度并非必须以陪审制为前提，法官审判同样需要交叉询问制度。我国许多学者主张明确区分证人类型，本文认为将被告人和被害人分别区分为控方证人和辩方证人是必要的，其他证人就不必明确区分其控辩立场。 本文第三部分阐述了交叉询问制度的程序优势和内在缺陷，认为该制度因诉讼的平等性、参与性以及当事人的主体性和事实探明过程的公开性而体现了诉讼民主和司法公正，因诉讼的激烈对抗和法官的消极中立而有利于发现真实，因辩护律师的积极参与而有利于保障人权。该制度的内在缺陷是：因过分注重诉讼技巧和策略、将人证调查变成控辩双方的争斗等妨碍事实真相的发现，因律师滥用权利、诉讼能力与资源不匹配以及陪审团不称职等影响诉讼公正，因由当事人而非法官推进诉讼而导致诉讼迟延，由律师而非当事人直接进行诉讼导致纠纷解决成本更高，以及对证人的不当折磨等。阐述本部分旨在全面展示交叉询问制度，以使我国对该制度的改革完善能弘扬其程序优势，并尽力防范其内在缺陷。 第四部分是全文的重心所在。本部分首先介绍了我国刑事诉讼中的交叉询问制度。通过对我国现行刑事诉讼法相关规定的引述和分析，认为该法对被告人的调查采取了“陈进扮问答”式，对证人、鉴定人的调查采取了问答式，对被害人的调查规定了陈述式。同时，根据该法，对证人等的调查事实上只能以法庭质证方式进行。因此控辩双方的交叉询问比法官职权询问更符合立法宗旨.但因该法相关规定过于简单，难以认定交叉询问制度的确立。通过对最高人民法院对如于刑事诉讼法的司法解释相关规定的引述和分析，认为解释规定了交叉询问的顺序，刹流规定了对被害人的发问权，对审判人员的发问进行了限定，简略规定了交叉询问的规则，可以认为已具备了交叉询问制度的雏形. 本部分接着分析了我国刑事诉讼中交叉询问制度的特点，包括:交叉询问适用的技术性规则非常简单，交叉询问不同阶段适用的规则没有区别;交叉询问制与职权讯(询)问制并存;存在着检察官、辩护方、被害人这三方绷于询问职能的主体;交叉询问适用范围十分有限;交叉询问的抗辩性不强;交叉询问的权利属性和技术属性都被淡化。 在分析我国刑事诉讼中的交叉询问制度及其特点的基础上，本部分接着阐述了我国刑事诉讼中交叉询问制度形同虚设的原因:一是观念的牵制，包括国家观念和国家干预意识、实体真实观以及重物证书证轻证人证言的司法观念和司法传统;二是职权主义宏观诉讼体制的掣肘;三是相关配套制度的缺失。 我国刑事诉讼中交叉询问制度的改革完善是本文的重中之重。本文从指导思想、模式选择、改革宏观诉讼体制、建立相关审判原则和证据规则、完善交叉询问的运作程序、建立健全相关配套制度以及交叉询问制度内在缺陷的防范等七个方面进行了系统的阐述。 关于指导思想，本文认为我国应兼采当事人主义和职权主义两大诉讼模式之长，结合我国民主法制建设经验，发展具有自身特色的现代司法制度。 关于模式选择，本文认为我国应选择以当事人询问为主、法官询问为辛}吮的交叉询问模式。整个交叉询问程序由控辩双方主导，法官的职责在于对交叉询问程序的主持、引导和对控辩双方争议的裁断。‘ 关于宏观诉讼体制的改革，本文认为我国应致力于建立以庭审为中心的宏观诉讼体制，庭审中应将法官的职权限制在诉讼指挥上，控辩双方应处于平等对抗的地位。 关于建立相关审判原则和证据规则的问题，本文认为交叉询问适用严密的审判原则、证据法则和技术性规则，否则难以更多还原

【Abstract】 Cross -Examination is an important judicial institution and evidential regulation of the Anglo-American countries, and it is one of the most characteristic institutions of the antagonistic lawsuits. We have introduced the Cross Examination institution in our country, but it hasn’t play its roles. Today, our country has been going further into the reformation of the criminal procedure. So it is important for us to probe into the theoretical basis and procedural regulations. This paper has four parts, and about 45800 words.The part one has introduced the Cross Examination institution of the Anglo-American countries, which includes the concept, procedure, main regulations, different modes and its practical situation.The part two has elaborated the theoretical bases and judicial prerequisites of the Cross Examination institution. It has stated that the procedural justice, human rights guarantee, the philosophy of relativism and fair competition are the theoretical bases of the institution. It also have judicial prerequisites which are the antagonistic procedure system, the clear position of different part, the ful1 use of the lawyer’s defense functions, the law practi tioners of high qualities, the appearance in court of the witness and the establishment of the preparation procedure before opening a court session. This part has elaborated the questions of the jury system and the differentiation of the type of the witnesses, too.The part three has elaborated the procedural merits and inner shortcomings. The author thought that the Cross Examination institution reflects the procedural democracy and justice, and it helps find the real facts of the suit and helps guarantee the human rights. The inner shortcomings of the institution are the hindrance of finding the real facts, the influence of the procedural justiceand the impairment of efficiency.Part four is the heart of this paper. It has elaborated the Cross Examination institution of the criminal procedure in our country, and it has stated its reformat ion and improvement carefully. At first, this part introduced the Cross Examination institution of our criminal procedure, and it analyzed its characteristics. Secondly, this part elaborated the reasons that made the institution couldn’t play its roles in the criminal lawsuit of our country, which include the check of the theoretical bases, the impediment of the macroscopic procedure and the lack of complete sets. At last, the paper has stated the reformation and improvement of the institution in our criminal procedure systematically. It spread out from seven respects which includes the guiding ideology, the selection of modes, the reformation of the macroscopic procedure, the related judicial principals and evidential rules, the improvement of the institution’s procedure, the establishment of the relevant institutions and the guard of the inner shortcomings of the institution.As to the guiding ideology, the author thought we should accept both of the merits of the procedure mode of Anglo-American countries and the continental countries, and combine the experiences of ourselves.As to the mode of the institution, the author thought we should select the mode of the parties to a lawsuit play leading roles.As to the reformation of the macroscopic procedure, the author thought we should build up the criminal procedures which turning around the judicial procedure, and keep the neutrality of the judges, and keep the equality between the public prosecutor and defenders.As to the related judicial principals and evidential rules, the author thought we should drawup the principle of directness and oral and the regulation of hearsay evidence.As to the improvement of the institution’s procedure, the paperdiscussed the way of witness’s testimony and the sequence, scope, main regulations of the institution.As to the establishment of the relevant regulations, the author thought we should build up the institutions that the witness’s appearing in court and the evidences’ showing before th更多还原