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.

This PhD thesis focuses on the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. Appropriate setting of limits of admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in the criminal proceedings is not only regarded as one of the main guaranties of fair justice system, but also represents topical and vital issue which raises number of legal dilemmas. The importance of the topic has been increasing recently as gathering of evidence in criminal proceedings often conflicts with the fundamental rights of individuals that are subject to severe limitation on constitutional and especially international level and that are broadly endangered during the process of collecting evidence. The core of the thesis lies in the in-depth analysis of current legislation, jurisprudence and case law dealing with the issue. Within the framework of that analysis, all of the important and disputed questions relating to the general aspects of admissibility of evidence are examined from the perspective of jurisprudence and case law; the knowledge is enriched with real practical impacts on domestic judicial practice. Special attention is paid to the issues related to the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from the process of evaluating evidence and forming final decision on the case. The thesis does not overlook the problems...

This PhD thesis focuses on the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings. Appropriate setting of limits of admissibility of illegally obtained evidence in the criminal proceedings is not only regarded as one of the main guaranties of fair justice system, but also represents topical and vital issue which raises number of legal dilemmas. The importance of the topic has been increasing recently as gathering of evidence in criminal proceedings often conflicts with the fundamental rights of individuals that are subject to severe limitation on constitutional and especially international level and that are broadly endangered during the process of collecting evidence. The core of the thesis lies in the in-depth analysis of current legislation, jurisprudence and case law dealing with the issue. Within the framework of that analysis, all of the important and disputed questions relating to the general aspects of admissibility of evidence are examined from the perspective of jurisprudence and case law; the knowledge is enriched with real practical impacts on domestic judicial practice. Special attention is paid to the issues related to the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence from the process of evaluating evidence and forming final decision on the case. The thesis does not overlook the problems...

博士(法学) / 甲第520号 / x, vi, 227p / Hitotsubashi University(一橋大学)

Ce mémoire propose une conception narrative du système de justice criminel. Pour ce faire, l’auteure mobilise la théorie narrative suivant laquelle le procès contradictoire est appréhendé comme un concours entre différentes histoires. Le caractère général de cette théorie confère à l’auteure l’espace nécessaire pour analyser et expliquer différents aspects du traitement judiciaire des faits, que ce soit la preuve judiciaire, le processus de détermination judiciaire des faits, l’intervention judiciaire en appel ou encore le droit qui encadre chacun de ces aspects. La notion d’« histoire » favorise l’adoption d’une perspective qui sort du cadre restreint du procès dans lequel la notion de « preuve » est enfermée. La théorie narrative permet ainsi à l’auteure d’expliquer et d’organiser en un tout unifié divers aspects du processus judiciaire comme l’enquête, le dépôt des accusations, la théorie de la cause, le contre-interrogatoire ou encore la façon dont les faits sont d’abord choisis et assemblés par les parties avant d’être administrés et traités au procès sous forme de « preuve ». Appliquée au procès, cette théorie implique une approche holistique de la preuve suivant laquelle la détermination judiciaire des faits est une évaluation de la vraisemblance relative des histoires en compétition. Cela remet en question la vision traditionnelle (ou rationaliste) atomiste de la preuve où les faits sont déterminés suite à une décision sur la véracité ou la fausseté de chacun des éléments de preuve. Le nouvel éclairage qu’apporte cette vision narrative du procès et ses diverses implications mènent l’auteure à remettre en question le bien-fondé de la vision traditionnelle voulant que le procès mène à une détermination judiciaire des faits qui soit exacte. Au terme de son illustration de la valeur heuristique de la théorie narrative, l’auteure revisite sous la perspective narrative les récentes études en matière d’erreurs judiciaires. Elle en conclut que le droit commande au juge d’atteindre une vérité hybride sur les faits, à michemin entre, d’une part, ce qui est survenu dans la réalité et, d’autre part, ce qui permet de conférer un maximum de cohérence aux éléments de preuves effectivement présentés au procès. / This master’s thesis proposes a narrative conceptualization of the criminal justice system. The author employs the narrative theory framework that conceives the adversarial trial as a contest between different stories. This comprehensive theory offers a lens through which the author analyzes and explains multiple aspects of the judicial processing of facts including evidence at trial, fact-finding, appellate review and the law governing these aspects. The concept of “story” allows a broader perspective than the concept of “evidence” which is limited to the trial. This umbrella theory is therefore used to explain, organize and provide a united understanding of various aspects of the judicial system, such as the investigatory process, the laying of charges, the theory of a case, the cross-examinations, as well as how facts are chosen and organized before being presented and processed at trial as “evidence”. At trial, the global perspective of the narrative theory challenges the traditional (or rationalist) atomist approach to evidence, which explains fact-finding as a decision based on the truthfulness or the falseness of each individual piece of evidence adduced at trial. The narrative perspective, rather, suggests a holistic approach – fact-finding is a decision regarding the relative plausibility between two competing stories. Thus, these insights from the narrative theory call into question the traditional assumption that trials lead to accurate findings of fact. After her demonstration of the heuristic value of the narrative theory, the author applies the narrative framework to recent studies on miscarriages of justice. She concludes that the law enables triers of fact to reach only a hybrid truth, halfway between what happened in reality and an assessment of the consistency between the evidence adduced at trial.