政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/96734
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50933534      Online Users : 981
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/96734


    Title: 鑑定報告與傳聞例外─最高法院近年相關裁判之評釋
    Other Titles: The Admissibility of Laboratory Reports in Criminal Trials: Review of Relevant Cases by the Supreme Court in Recent Years
    Authors: 李佳玟
    Lee, Chia-Wen
    Keywords: 鑑定報告;證據能力;對質詰問權;傳聞法則;傳聞例外;直接審理原則;武器平等;改良式的當事人進行主義;檢察一體
    Date: 2008-02
    Issue Date: 2016-05-20 10:44:26 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 針對鑑定報告的證據能力，我國最高法院向來遵循刑事訴訟法第一五九條的修法意旨，認定同法第二○六條屬於第一五九條第一項所承認的傳聞例外，因此法官與檢察官囑託選任鑑定而作成的報告原則上具有證據能力。至於司法警察所委託的鑑定報告，最高法院以檢察一體的法理，認為該鑑定報告因已受檢察長的概括委託亦有證據能力。對照之下，告訴人或被告委託鑑定的鑑定報告則因不符合刑事訴訟法的規定，被排除在審判庭之外。本文認為：最高法院的處理方式形式上雖符合現行法的規定，但實質上其對鑑定報告的預設卻欠缺事實支持，牴觸直接審理原則，與近年來改良式當事人進行主義的精神不符，更侵害刑事被告的對質詰問權。本文將從保障被告之對質詰問權，且兼顧訴訟經濟的角度，對鑑定報告之處理方式提供意見。
    With respect to the admissibility of laboratory reports in criminal trials, the Supreme Court in Taiwan generally follows the legislative notes of the Criminal Procedural Code, and permits the lower courts to use crime laboratory reports provided by the prosecutors and the trial court itself, in lieu of live witness testimony, to prove essential elements of a criminal case. The defendant cannot cross-examine forensic expert unless the trial court approves. By contrast, the laboratory report provided by the defendant is inadmissible, simply because the defendant is not authorized by the law to appoint a forensic expert. This article argues that crime laboratory reports in general lack the reliability that the legislators and the Supreme Court assume that they have. Cross-examining a forensic expert in a trial is always a better way to test the reliability of forensic test results. In addition, using crime laboratory reports, in lieu of live witness testimony, contradicts the principle of direct trial, and is inconsistent with the principle of equality of arms, promoted by our new modified adversarial system. Most of all, using crime laboratory reports, in lieu of live witness testimony, is a violation of the defendant’s right of confrontation. Therefore, this article suggests that the Supreme Court should change its rulings, and more fundamentally, the legislators should modify relevant regulations, so that the defendant may have a fair opportunity to confront any witness against her/him, including the forensic experts, and provide her/his own expert in trial to testify for her/him. Only when the defendant agrees to use the laboratory reports, in lieu of live witness testimony, can the forensic expert be exempted from the obligation of testifying in court.
    Relation: 法學評論, 101, 193-24
    Data Type: article
    Appears in Collections:[Chengchi law review ] Journal Articles

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    101(193-254).pdf864KbAdobe PDF21626View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback