刑事庭审中的事实认定初探

【作者】 祁亚平；

【导师】 孙宁华；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 事实认定是法庭审理案件的主要内容之一，同时也是诉讼法学研究的重要组成部分。事实是法庭适用法律进行裁判的基础，如果事实认定出现误差，那么整个庭审就会因为事实依据的错误而绝对产生错判。对于理论研究来讲，事实认定也是目前讨论的许多问题所无法回避的：诸如证据制度的建设、诉讼进行方式、审判模式、诉讼结构的改革、证人规则、沉默权规则、辩诉交易的引进都必须以理顺法庭认定程序、法庭权力运作等问题为基本前提。然而令人遗憾的是事实认定问题目前还没有引起人们的应有重视。一方面庭审改革已经在理论界和实践操作中进行了广泛的讨论，其中一部分意见在96刑诉法修改条款中已经得到体现，而另一方面国内在事实认定研究方面，无论是理论界还是实务界都将这一问题放置于证据学中进行研究——这是与我国八十年代初期研究思路基本相同的，因而与目前有关庭审改革讨论的热闹场面形成极大的反差：许多学者仍致力于证据概念、证据形式的研究，甚至对一部分学者来讲，事实认定仍旧只是证据形式的“科学”性问题。偏爱从准确度方面分析事实认定几乎要成为国内研究中的思维定势。笔者对这种研究方式存有一些怀疑。因为从基本的证据学知识来讲，任何证据形式都无法根本保证其内容的真实性。既然这一点能为众人承认，那么相信事实认定问题并不能单纯依赖于证据制度的研究；同时，如果诉讼法学研究完全脱离证据使用或事实认定这样的基本内容，那么诸如诉讼程序，诉讼进行方式的研究将过度地依赖伦理分析。 发现事实真相是防止刑事法庭滥用权力的最有效途径，只有发现已逝的“事实”，才能使有罪衍者得到处罚，使正当权益得到有力救济。孟德斯鸠曾认为刑罚的运作效果并不在于刑罚本身是否足够严酷，而在于刑罚适用时犯罪是否得到准确地揭示，揭示犯罪比刑罚恐吓更能防止犯罪发生。从司法实践来看，各国法庭也总是积极地追求发现致讼的事实，只有使法官认识到真正发生了什么，法庭才能准确、慎重地使用刑罚权力，使罪过得到惩罚，正义得到彰现。犯罪行为发生于罪责追究程序之前，因而审判程序是对已逝的“事实”进行追溯，并进而对行为人进行刑罚裁判。没有事实认定就不存在刑事裁判。事实认定实为刑事审判程序中的最主要部分之一，也是国家具体刑罚权实现的唯一途径，所有与定罪量刑有关的事实都必须在法庭做出裁判之前予以查明、确认。本文立足于对事实认定进行权力分析，包括权力构成与权力运行。国家与公民在刑事诉讼领域的首要伦理要求就是国家只能惩罚有罪过的公民，或者说，犯罪行为，刑事责任与刑罚结果之间必须有现实的联系，国家只能对那些在诉讼中已经得到证实的罪行进行刑罚处罚。国家必须保证公民在刑事诉讼中享有主体性地位，受到有尊严的对待，防止因众人的敌意、歧视、偏见而将刑罚施用于无辜的公民。我国常使用“证据制度”或“证据的审查判断”来分析这一问题，但是其所指范围并不局限于刑事庭审程序，关注的重点也更加强调证据本身而非证据的运用，此即所谓“真实观”问题。目前又出现“认证”的讨论。笔者认为庭审程序与庭外程序在权力构成、权力性质、权力运行、救济程序方面都有诸多明显区别，对于事实认定的分析自当严格地限定于刑事庭审之内。而且从习惯上来讲:“证据的审查判断”与“认证”等各种概念尽管与本文分析角度有一定差异，但从学者们使用范围来看“真实观”与“认证”仍从分析庭审事实认定入手或非常强调这一阶段的特殊性。因而本文采更易为人清晰了解的“事实认定”概念。 事实认定(fact一finding)是法庭通过审理证据、推断和确认追诉中的事实问题的特定活动。刑事庭审中的事实认定是刑事法庭在刑事诉讼中针对指控进行证据调查，判断指控犯罪是否发生、指控罪名是否成立的特定活动。笔者认为事实认定问题首先应当是一种权力配置和权力约束问题，因而当事人和法官的权力、权利问题应当是分析事实认定时的首要问题。 选择这一视角的初衷是希望能通过单一主体的分析来研究事实认定这样有些庞大的题目，以避免将过多的精力浪费在不必要的其它主体分析、文章结构安排以及文字方面的重复。这种视角重视法官的重要角色，但并不代表笔者对79刑法职权主义诉讼模式的回归，同时“权力分析”这一理论工具目前仍显得不成熟，人们潜意识中对权力的误解也使笔者的分析过程负载了一些不必要的防范性解释。然而令人值得欣慰的是在这一视角之下，许多问题更能顺利地互相契合，也发现了证据制度视角下被忽视的一些问题。 文章共分为六个部分。其一、二、三部分是引论;四、五部分是本论;六为结论。 由于笔者法学功底有限，资料的收集、分析也有一些难度，笔者只能对事实认定进行比较粗陋的分析，是以名之为“初探”，主要是希望以后能有机会更深入地进行研究，同时也请各位老师多加指正。更多还原

【Abstract】 This essay is on fact-finding. For many years, we learnt and taught for granted and couraged that the judicial decision must be and would be on the truth and the most and for most subjected truth. The traditional issue of our main land claimed in an agitated tone that the fact is beyond any judge’s own attitude, only the fact "decided" the case. In this believe, we formed our jurisdiction in administrative ways and regulated them in teams and does not give any single choice to decide the case by his own understanding. But in this formulation, how do they find the truth and what truth can they find still need more careful examinations. For many years, we ignore the science of Power so much as we care less of the regulations we set. And the more urgent question still is what do justices use to find the truthful facts and do we give them the right power and right means? Backing these questions, we have many claims used to be out of questions should be introspected. In vain ,we have not enough courage to be so proud about our judiciary theories. This article is a careful step into this field. Although many men have marked their names in the route, and the reforming way is opening now. As plain as I am, still make my best. Pains but no gains. It is my own glimpse.In a very long time, we see res indicata a claim in the evidence field and we scolded this one thoroughly. See res indicata in more care and intent way, we will find the rules only means give the judge the power to find fact. The judge does need to own the authority to make the decision. Although he buries the duty to listen the parties, to hear the evidences, and he also bury the duty to endure the persevading. But he as a single man has the power to rule the court and can use his own knowledge of law science and his understanding to find the guilt, to sentence the guilty boy, to guard the safe line of our society. We also can see, in some cases, the judge make the decision such kind to near his own experience that we can not cut the infellonse between his power and his own attitude thoroughly.There are six parts in my essay. The first is on the complication of the facts we will talk. I think the fact we find in courts is not absolutely subjective, for the judge and the particular rules add a few objective parts in to it. And the judge ismore objective than we think before. In the second part, I make a plain backing on our jurisdiction in history. In the following one I make a introduction of our theories nowadays in mainland as simple as possible. Looking back and around Is only for one thing - to find the default exactly, especially in the settlement of our judge’ power.In the forth and fifth part, I try to explain my point: in fact-finding, the most and fore most important role is the judge’s power. In any cases the judge own the only power to make the decision. And his thought about some people or something, or even our society, our law, our civilization, his painful experience, his relations would affect the jurisdiction. So we need the rules to own him the power and to regulate this power. In plain words the power is a component one. In the last part, I make a few propose for further reforming.Thanks a lot to MZ..SUN, she give my essay many helpful clues. Also thanks Mr. LongZongZhi and this essay is debating his theories. Thanks Mr. song of the lia. Of the South-west college of law science and politics, I find many books there.更多还原