1 |
視訊(Video)證據之刑事證據調查程序─以美國法為中心 / Video Evidence in Criminal Investigation Procedure: Focusing on American Law卓巧琦, Cho, Chiao Chi Unknown Date (has links)
視訊資料於現今社會下於生活中廣泛被使用,從專門用於拍攝影片的V8、DV,到結合攝影功能的數位相機,更甚至於最近的手機、平版電腦,其之影片拍攝之功能,更成為其之基本配備。是以,視訊資料做為證據使用,亦隨之成為普遍,視訊證據於刑事審判程序如何被使用,將有討論的必要。
除說明本文之研究動機、研究目的、研究方法及範圍外,本文依序探討視訊資料之發展以及視訊證據之概念與優缺點,並藉由介紹美國學者對於視訊證據之分類,以建立視訊證據之討論基礎。接著,討論視訊證據於美國刑事審判程序之調查規範與適用,並分析視訊證據於美國刑事審判程序調查時所可能發生之問題,探究美國刑事審判實務相應之解決方案。最後,比較與我國刑事審判實務上對於視訊證據調查之差異,以供我國刑事審判實務之借鏡外,亦藉此分析視訊證據於我國刑事審判程序調查時所可能發生之問題,並尋求相應之解決方案。 / Video evidence is extensively used nowadays. From the use of professional motion-filming video 8 mm and digital video to digital cameras with filming function, as well as cell phones and tablet personal computers, the function of motion-filming has recently become essential and indispensable. Therefore, video evidence treated as evidence is progressively common, and it is necessary to discuss how video evidence is used in criminal trial procedure.
In addition to elaborating the observation motive, purpose, method and scope of this thesis, the progress of video materials as well as the concept and odds and ends of video evidence will be sequentially discussed. Furthermore, the discussion ground for video evidence will be built by means of introducing the classification of video evidence from scholars in the U.S. To continue, there will be a focus on the discussion of the investigation rules and application of video evidence in the U.S. criminal trial procedure, and then analyze the possible questions which may arise while using video evidence in criminal trial procedure in the U.S. as well as explore the corresponding solutions used in the U.S. In conclusion, the U.S. will be used as a reference model by comparing the divergences of the investigation process in video evidence between our country and the U.S. In the meantime, the probable questions that we might confront while investigating video evidence in criminal trial procedure will be assayed, and afterwards, the corresponding solutions will be searched for.
|
2 |
刑事訴訟自由心證主義之研究葉志飛 Unknown Date (has links)
本論文之撰寫乃是針對刑事訴訟中自由心證主義之相關問題加以分析,並不及於其他訴訟程序中之自由心證主義。蓋僅以自由心證主義是否必須以證據裁判主義或嚴格的證明為前提,刑事訴訟與民事訴訟因訴訟理念及機能之不同,即有相異之考量。
本論文共分六章。第一章為緒論;第二章至第四章則為本文欲分析之主要部分,分別是自由心證主義之概念與歷史沿革、自由心證主義之法理構造、自由心證主義之擔保及自由心證主義之例外;第六章則為結論。
在第一章緒論中,首先指出本論文的研究動機,並指出以下各個論文主題之主要研究方法與目的。
在第二章中,分析自由心證主義之概念與歷史沿革。其中自由心證主義之概念,係從其與證據裁判主義、法定證據主義之比較,以及自由心證主義本身中心證與自由的意義等等予以架構。又自由心證主義之探討,慮其長久苦難歷史產物之性格,因對其歷史沿革作一簡介。
在第三章中,分析自由心證主義之法理構造並將其解構為主體、客體、精神及心證程度四個要素。
在第四章中,分析自由心證主義之擔保機制。首先對擔保機制及其他與影響自由心證內容之其他機制作一區別,並進而對個個已在學說實務上成為探討對象之擔保機制,分析其內涵及與自由心證之關係,並得出有無實質擔保機能之看法。
在第五章中,分析自由心證主義之例外。分析之範圍為被告之自白、共犯之自白、告訴人之陳述、審判筆錄之證明力及與錄音帶、錄影帶內容不符之被告筆錄之證明力,並得出肯定與否定之結論。另提出將自由心證主義之例外作為檢驗近來修法通過之起訴審查制審查基準之看法。
在第六章結論中,說明自由心證主義之將來、總結先前之分析探討,並指出筆者尚未能解決之相關問題點。
|
3 |
民事程序中違法取證可利用性之研究 / A Study on Admissibility of Evidence Obtained Illegally in Civil Procedure劉承翰, Liu, Chen Han Unknown Date (has links)
違法取得之證據於民事訴訟上可否予以使用,涉及之層面甚為廣泛,最為相關者,即係對於發現真實之手段上,所容許最大界限之所在,此自涉及到民事訴訟制度上之價值判斷,因此欲釐清此一爭議問題,自有必要以民事訴訟之最上位法理,諸如發現真實之追求、民事訴訟制度之目的,以及促進訴訟等相關之基本理念予以探討,本文整理並歸納目前文獻上所提出之諸多理論,以違法取證可利用性之角度切入予以觀察,是否有所衝突抑或係理念相同之處,以尋求此議題於民事訴訟整體架構之定位;此外若係採取禁止使用之立場,為避免實質正義之完全剝奪,即須進一步探討民事訴訟制度之發展,是否已提供足以正當化禁止使用此類證據之正當性基礎,本文並以實務上最為常見之通姦案例為焦點,具體操作評估此理論基礎之可行性。
再者,職司審判之法院為達認定事實之要求,自須依自由心證而為證據取捨並為證據評價,此自為自由心證之內涵,而欲承認違法取得之證據將有禁止使用之可能者,自須探討是否法官得基於自由心證,而享有證據之利用自由,為釐清此一爭議,本文以證據能力之要件、證據能力與證據價值之區分、嚴格證明之要求,並進一步釐清民事訴訟法以及實務運作上對於各種證據能力之規範,以尋求違法取得之證據於自由心證之定位。
對於違法取得之證據倘若欲禁止使用,實務上所面臨到操作上之問題,即係基於何種理論基礎、何種審查方式、於審判程序何種階段予以審查、證據禁止之範圍均須一併納入探討之範圍予以釐清,而民事訴訟上違法取證之議題,外國法已發展出一套運作模式,因此本論文於此同時整理並歸納外國法之文獻,諸如英美法之證據排除法則之運作,以及德國法之證據禁止法則之介紹,並與我國法之制度運作互為參照比較,是否可為我國體系建構上之參考借鏡。
同時再以實務上較為常見之違反程序法,以即違反實體法所取得之證據,予以類型化分類,並以學說見解之介紹與實務見解之觀察與分析,探討是否有較為穩定性之運作模式,以符合法安定性。
最後基於實務見解對於此類議題已有為數不少之判決,本論文即以表格化之方式,予以呈現實務上目前對於證據禁止使用之審查方式為何、證據禁止使用之比例多寡、對於各種類型係以何種原因作為判斷可利用性之考量,期望能較為清楚目前實務見解對此一議題之走向。
|
4 |
論澳門刑事訴訟中的自由心證原則 = On the evidence evaluaion principle in Macau Criminal Procedure Law何駿豪 January 2009 (has links)
University of Macau / Faculty of Law
|
5 |
共同被告供述之證據適格及證明力 = The evidentiary qualification and credibility of statement by the co-defendant / Evidentiary qualification and credibility of statement by the co-defendant許爽瑜 January 2010 (has links)
University of Macau / Faculty of Law
|
6 |
測謊在刑事訴訟中之法律地位劉思吟 Unknown Date (has links)
本文首先介紹測謊的原理及測謊之作業流程,在對測謊有基本認識之前提下,將有助於理解接下來本文所要探討的測謊之法律性質及其對基本權所造成之干預。所謂測謊,係指施測者對受測人以測謊儀器實施檢測,檢測中由施測人向受測者就預定問題發問,受測人回答問題時經由儀器記錄其生理及心理回應,再由施測者就記錄判別解讀,製作成報告載明受測人種種回應是否顯示其說謊。由於人在下意識地努力去隱蔽真實情形時,通常會發生非常微妙之心理變化,並隨之引起身體外部之生理變化,因此,測謊其實就是結合生理學、心理學及物理學之一門新學科。
測謊涉及受測者為憲法所保障之身體的完整自主、隱私權、不自證己罪特權與人性尊嚴,乃國家訴追機關有意欲之措施所欲達到之目的的直接結果,在性質上應屬強制處分。由於違反受測者意願所為之測謊,係對人類精神-心靈空間之侵入,人類的意思自由與陳述自由完全遭到排除,淪為國家行為之客體,嚴重侵害個人之人性尊嚴,故即使有法律授權仍屬違憲。至於在同意測謊的情形,不能謂係對人性尊嚴之侵害或限制,反倒是人性尊嚴之保障與實踐。因為任何對人性尊嚴的保護,均不允許違反人性尊嚴主體的意思。是故,受測者之同意是唯一可能使測謊處分正當化之依據,因此有必要探討同意之測謊處分在法律上應如何評價、其法理依據何在、有何限制,及應具備哪些要件等問題。
接下來要探討的,是符合一定要件之測謊,在刑事訴訟中是否有證據能力。本文先就最早使用測謊儀器之美國開始,次就歐陸法系之德國對測謊證據能力之處理作比較法上之觀察,最後再說明我國實務與學說之見解,以了解外國法與我國法之差異,尋繹是否以及在何等程度內可援引外國法作為我國法之參考,並提出本文見解,認為測謊檢查結果若與本案犯罪事實相關者,必須未經禁止使用,且經嚴格證明之合法調查程序後,始能取得證據能力,作為認定犯罪事實之依據。因此,本文即從1證據使用禁止及2嚴格證明兩個面向探討測謊結果之證據能力。最後,在肯定測謊檢查結果具有證據能力之前提下,探討其對待證事實之證明力並作結。
|
7 |
偵訊筆錄記錄完整性與證據能力之研究 / A Study on the Completeness and Evidentiary Value of Written Interrogation Records徐國楨, Hsu,kuo chen Unknown Date (has links)
刑事訴訟法是確定國家刑罰權之程序法,刑事訴訟程序進行中,難免侵害人民之基本權。因此,刑事偵查應遵守程序正義,以保障人權。偵訊係將被告、犯罪嫌疑人拘束於特定之地點,即地檢署之偵查庭或司法警察機關之詢問室,且接受檢察官、司法警察人員之訊(詢)問。基於偵查不公開原則,當事人若未委任律師到場陪同,外界難以窺探了解偵訊之過程。為避免發生不當偵訊,刑事訴訟法第100條之1第1項前段規定,訊問被告,應全程連續錄音;必要時,並應全程連續錄影,即在擔保偵訊時當事人陳述之任意性及偵訊筆錄記錄之正確性。第2項規定,筆錄內所載之被告陳述與錄音或錄影之內容不符者,除有急迫情況且經記明筆錄者外,其不符之部分,不得作為證據。因此,被告之陳述若與錄音或錄影之內容不符,偵訊筆錄將受證據排除,而不具證據能力。
實務上偵訊筆錄之製作,並無法與當事人之陳述同步,且偵訊筆錄之記錄,係由訊(詢)問之檢察官、司法警察(官)於整理當事人陳述後,擇與案情有關部分記錄於偵訊筆錄,換言之,偵訊筆錄之記錄,並非逐字記載當事人之陳述,則偵訊筆錄之記錄是否為當事人陳述之真意,迭生爭議。
本研究以文獻分析法、歷史分析法,探討偵訊筆錄記錄完整性與證據能力之研究,並分析刑事訴訟法有關訊(詢)問之相關規定及司法實務上偵查筆錄記錄之現況,經綜合分析提出建議如下:
一、偵訊實務建議
在偵訊實務方面之建議,偵查機關應建立偵訊養成教育之完整計畫,偵訊工作需由專業之執法人員擔任;強化偵訊錄影音監督機制,俾加強對偵訊筆錄記錄正確性及任意性之監督。
二、偵訊教育之完整計畫
偵查機關應將偵訊工作相關法律規範,彙編成冊,並依據法律規定,訂定偵訊標準化、類型化作業程序,依據不同案件類型,編訂擬問問題之標準作業手冊。
三、偵訊錄影音監督機制
為避免證人、被告、犯罪嫌疑人,在檢察官、司法警察(官)泛談前即受到威嚇或脅迫,其到達司法機關後,應即進入詢問室,並立即進行全程錄影,避免在偵訊前即受到脅迫;證人、被告、犯罪嫌疑人到達訊(詢)問地點時間與真正開始製作偵訊筆錄之時間應記錄明確,俾供查核。
四、偵訊筆錄記錄
偵查筆錄之記錄,係經偵訊者整理當事人陳述後,記錄於偵查筆錄,偵訊者應客觀、中立,並以最大之可能性,完整記錄當事人陳述,始符合正當法律程序原則。
五、偵訊筆錄記錄人員
設置專責偵訊筆錄記錄制度,以專門職業訓練認證及考選,納入考選部之「專門職業及技術人員」考試類別,以解決筆錄製作須具公務員之身分問題。
六、偵訊筆錄記錄輔助系統
為提升偵查筆錄記錄之完整性及正確性,可利用電腦科技,建置常用之片語快捷,以減少筆錄編輯時間。
七、修正刑事訴訟法第40條規定
偵查筆錄以電腦記錄,最後列印之筆錄文書,並不會呈現增、刪過程紀錄,建議修正刑事訴訟法第40條規定:「公務員制作之文書,不得竄改或挖補;如有增加、刪除或附記者,應蓋章其上,並記明字數。以電磁記錄製作文書者,其刪除處應留存原字跡,俾得辨認。」 / A Study on the Completeness and Evidentiary Value of Written Interrogation Records
The Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law for stipulating state power of punishment. In the process of judicial proceedings, it is inevitable that people’s rights might be violated. Therefore criminal investigation should abide by procedural justice in order to protect human rights. Interrogation is to detain defendant or criminal suspect at a certain place, namely investigation room of District Prosecutors Office or interrogation room of judicial police agencies, where the defendant or criminal suspect will be interrogated or questioned by prosecutor or judicial policeman. Based on the principle of secret investigation, the person in question, if not accompanied by a hired lawyer, the investigation process will not be known to the public. To prevent unjustified interrogation, the first part of sub-item 1 of Article 100-1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that when interrogating a defendant, the whole process should be tape-recorded. When necessary, the whole process will be video recorded. This is meant to guarantee the willfulness of defendant’s statement of when being interrogated as well as the correctness of interrogation record. Sub-item 2 of Article 100-1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that if defendant’s statement in interrogation record is not in accordance with contents of interrogation tape record or video record, the Inconsistent part shall not serve as evidence, with the exception of emergency which is especially marked in the said record. Therefore, if defendant’s statement is not in accordance with contents of tape record or video record, the interrogation record will be excluded as evidence,meanwhile losing the credibility of the evidence.
In practice, the production of interrogation record is not possible to synchronize with defendant’s statement. The interrogation record is produced by selecting part of defendant’s statement that is related to the case after statement organizing by the prosecutor or judicial police officer who interrogated. In other words, interrogation record is not the word-for-word defendant’s statement. Disputes often happen on whether interrogation record agrees with the true meaning of the defendant’s statement.
This research has explored completeness and evidential power of interrogation record through documentary analysis, historical analysis, and comparative analysis. It has also conducted analysis on relevant regulations regarding interrogation (questioning) and current status of actual interrogation record. The research offers the following suggestions after a comprehensive analysis:
A. Suggestions on interrogation practice
Regarding suggestion on interrogation practice, the investigation organ should draw a complete plan to cultivate qualified investigators, so that the interrogation could be handled by professional law enforcement officials. A supervising mechanism for interrogation tape and video record should be further strengthened in order to supervise the correctness and willfulness of interrogation record.
B. Complete Plan for Investigators Cultivation
The investigation organ should draw complete plan to cultivate investigators and compile laws and regulations relevant to the work of interrogation into books. Interrogation should be standardized and classified, with the establishment of operational procedure. Based on the nature of different cases, various standard operational manuals with prepared questions should be produced.
C. Mechanism to Supervise Tape or Video Record of Interrogation
To avoid the threat or intimidation happened before wide-ranging questioning of prosecutor and judicial police officer, the witness, defendant, and suspect will immediately be led into the interrogation room once arriving at the judicial office. Whole-process video recording will be conducted immediately to prevent him from being threatening before interrogation. The exact time and place that the witness, defendant, and suspect arrive at for interrogation (questioning) and the start time of interrogation record should be clearly recorded for checking.
D. Interrogation Record
Interrogation record, after being compiled by investigator, is being recorded. The investigator should be objective and neutral, and record the statement of the person in question as complete as possible, which conforms to the principle of due process of law.
E. Stenographer of Interrogation Record
Stenographers must obtain certification after receiving professional training and pass examination. Taiwan has special professional training programs for stenographer. Stenographer is listed in examination category of “professionals and technicians” of Ministry of Examination, which meets the requirement that stenographers have to be civil servants.
F. Secondary System of Interrogation Record
In order to improve the completeness and correctness of interrogation record, computer technology can be applied to create shortcuts for commonly used phrases,reducing time for recording and compiling.
G. Revising Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Interrogation record is recorded by computer. The printed final written version of the record will not show previous processes of addendums and deletions. Suggestion is given to revise Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to the following quoted text: “Documents made by public functionaries are forbidden to revise or edit. Should there are addendums, deletions, or notes added, chops should be placed where such amendment occurs, with the number of altered words noted. When documents are made with computer, original texts should be kept for identification purpose.
|
8 |
漢代玄武研究 / Study of Xuan-wu in Han Dynasty黃靖玟 Unknown Date (has links)
玄武是四靈之中最難以辨清面貌者,從先秦至今夾纏著重重迷團。本論文以「漢代」為切入觀察時代,期以綴補現今玄武研究集中於先秦及宋元兩大區塊間的橋樑位置。首先釐清玄武釋名與內涵等聚訟已久的基礎論題,其次從三方面釐清漢代玄武面貌,包括玄武與龜的粘合與相混、漢代宇宙模型中的玄武、畫像石中的玄武等面向。漢代玄武與青龍、白虎、朱雀三者難以分離處理,文獻中玄武殊少單獨出現,多以「四靈」穩定結構呈現。論文的主要的成果在於透過文籍整理以及考古資料的蒐集,從現象面整理出玄武與龜二者各司其職的情形,釐清了玄武與龜之間的分野後,可檢討過去相關討論將玄武與龜文獻相混使用所造成的問題;而透過畫像石、瓦當、銅鏡等多種玄武圖像資料的整合也可看出在玄武在漢代較細緻的面貌。
|
9 |
家事事件程序中事證蒐集任務之分配 -以程序法理之選擇及其程序合併下可能產生之疑義為重心家事事件程序中之事證蒐集任務之分配 -以程序法理之選擇及其程序合併下可能產生之疑義為重心 / Doctrine of distribution of the facts and evidences in Family Act -focus on procedure jurisprudence and procedure join’s problems段家傑 Unknown Date (has links)
本文篇名為家事事件程序中事證蒐集任務之分配-以程序法理之選擇及其程序合併下可能產生之疑義為重心,主要重點係強調事證蒐集任務於家事事件程序中,現行法下應如何妥適分配,評析現行法上之疑義與學者實務間之問題整理。
本文以程序法理為重心,論現行法上打破事證蒐集任務以訴訟、非訟程序之區分,而以「當事人對程序標的是否有處分權」一事,作為採用家事事件法第10條第1項或第2項之標準。本法第10條之規定妥適性,特別係第2項但書之規定,是否過於廣泛?本文亦有著墨。
第四章自調解程序開始,至戊類事件結束,分析各事件中之爭議,並探究其間之事證蒐集任務下可能發生之疑義。特別須強調乙類事件中之離婚事件與戊類事件中之費用請求事件(扶養費、贍養費與家庭生活費),此二類事件係學說、實務上爭議點最大者,故本文利用較大之篇幅論述。
第五章則係對於合併、變更、追加與反請求時,可能產生之疑義,例如訴訟經濟之喪失、救濟程序之紊亂、審級利益之侵害與訴訟與非訟法理交錯適用時,對於處分權主義、辯論主義上之影響,作一併探討。
第六章則係本文最後之結論,統整前章節所述及之處,作最後之統合整理。
|
10 |
醫療文書之證據能力與證明力 / The evidence ability and probative value of medical documents郭弘義 Unknown Date (has links)
我國刑事訴訟制度從「職權主義」轉變為「改良的當事人主義」,有關證據調查及採認與事實認定等問題,從原本耳熟能詳的「嚴格證明法則」及「直接審理原則」,在「傳聞法則」一詞加入了刑事訴訟法(以下簡稱本法)第一五九條後,使得對「證據能力」之判斷產生混淆,爭論問題面變的更加複雜。醫療文書常在司法審判程序中被用來當作判案依據之重要證據,其中關於「病歷紀錄」、「診斷證明」及「鑑定報告」這三種醫療文書的「證據能力」與「證明力」,各界看法不一,確實有加以探討及釐清的必要。
本文研究,主要擬就比較法例上,英美法系之當事人主義及大陸法係之職權主義對於證據能力及證明力之定義及關於傳聞證據之處理有何不同,並據此釐清我國醫療證明關於證據能力及證明力的爭論。故本文首先就證據能力、證明力之定義加以釐清。再從關連性法則、證據排除法則、傳聞法則等,分析我國採改良式之當事人主義後,應如何判斷證據能力之有無及證明力應經由何種法定程序而形成。其後將直接審理原則及傳聞法則之基本原則予以析理,繼而分別就傳聞法則、傳聞證據之種類、意義,傳聞法則例外適用之問題加以研究,並析我國實務實際運作上,同時採行直接審理原則與傳聞法則,對於對質詰問權之保障有無扞格之虞,是否對程序結構面造成一整體性的破壞。
在論述「病歷紀錄」、「診斷證明」及「鑑定報告」這三種醫療文書之證據能力與證明力方面,本文先從製作過程與內涵性質方面來剖析是否具有「必要性」及「可信性」,來判斷是否屬於傳聞法則之例外。另外亦從刑事訴訟法關於鑑定的相關規定,提出不同見解,分析鑑定報告書是否非需借道「傳聞法則」方能保障對質詰問權。
最終本文認為,病歷紀錄與診斷證明雖為傳聞證據,因其具有高度之「證據可信性」及「證據必要性」二項要件,例外地承認其有證據能力當無疑義;且一律要求完成業務文書之人必須出庭陳述並接受詰問,事實上訴訟資源也難以負擔。然對於未曾予被告於先前程序或於審判中有詰問機會之傳聞陳述,除非該原始陳述人於本案審判期日不能到庭應訊,不應不當限制被告之對質詰問權,以維護當事人訴訟防禦權。目前將鑑定報告之證據能力「借道」傳聞法則來審查,減損了當事人對於鑑定此一證據應享有充分防禦可能之憲法權利,更有違證據調查須以直接審理、言詞辯論為原則之要求,此與司法院釋字第三八四號解釋文闡明憲法保障人民之對質詰問等訴訟防禦權之理念背道而馳。在當事人受憲法保障之訴訟防禦權以及正當法律程序要求下,建議對第二○六條作合於憲法要求之修正,方能保障對質詰問權,並杜絕憲法上之爭議。
|
Page generated in 0.0242 seconds