英美非法证据排除的中间上诉制度初探
|
摘要
英美法设有中间上诉制度审查证据的可采性问题。中间上诉有助于及时纠正错误的证据裁定,节省司法资源,保障最终裁判结果的准确性。按照平等武装和公正审判原则,控辩双方都应有权提起中间上诉。同时,为了控制上诉数量、提高审查质量,英美的中间上诉基本采用裁量型上诉和上诉许可制,并设置了严格的上诉条件。当事人首先应向法院申请上诉许可,法院经审查认为符合上诉条件并具有合理理由的,才会批准上诉许可并启动听审程序。法院经中间上诉所作的裁决具有终局效力。研判中间上诉的制度功能,详述上诉程序的具体建构,能凸显"尽早发现、尽早排除"非法证据的重要意义。我国"以审判为中心"的改革为引入中间上诉制度提供了探索空间,但中间上诉不能造成滥用诉权和诉讼拖延,不能危及审判的中心地位。
The UK and US both have established the interlocutory appeal system to review verdicts on the admissibility of evidence. Interlocutory appeals are conducive to correcting wrongful verdicts, saving judicial resources and ensuring the accuracy of judgments. In accordance with the principles of equality of arms and fair trial, both parties should have the right to file interlocutory appeals. In order to control the number of appeals and enhance the quality of interlocutory reviews, the UK and US adopt the systems of discretionary appeal and the requirement of leave to appeal, and set high thresholds for interlocutory appeals. The court can approve an application for the leave to appeal and hear the case only if it meets the necessary conditions. Interlocutory verdicts are final. Studying the functions of interlocutory appeals and analyzing their constructions serve to highlight the importance of the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence as early as possible. China's "trial-centered" reform can offer room for the exploration of the interlocutory appeals and provide supportive mechanisms. However, interlocutory appeals should never cause the abuse of right or delay of proceedings, or jeopardize the central position of trial.
The UK and US both have established the interlocutory appeal system to review verdicts on the admissibility of evidence. Interlocutory appeals are conducive to correcting wrongful verdicts, saving judicial resources and ensuring the accuracy of judgments. In accordance with the principles of equality of arms and fair trial, both parties should have the right to file interlocutory appeals. In order to control the number of appeals and enhance the quality of interlocutory reviews, the UK and US adopt the systems of discretionary appeal and the requirement of leave to appeal, and set high thresholds for interlocutory appeals. The court can approve an application for the leave to appeal and hear the case only if it meets the necessary conditions. Interlocutory verdicts are final. Studying the functions of interlocutory appeals and analyzing their constructions serve to highlight the importance of the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence as early as possible. China's "trial-centered" reform can offer room for the exploration of the interlocutory appeals and provide supportive mechanisms. However, interlocutory appeals should never cause the abuse of right or delay of proceedings, or jeopardize the central position of trial.
引文
(1)参见戴长林等著:《中国非法证据排除制度》(修订版),法律出版社2017年版,第191页。
(2)参见陈瑞华:《非法证据排除程序再讨论》,《法学研究》2014年第2期,第179页。
(3)参见许乐:《非法证据排除程序研究》,西南政法大学2016年博士论文,第180页以下。
(4)本文中关于英国中间上诉制度的叙述仅考察了英格兰和威尔士的情况。
(5)J.R.Spencer, Does Our Present Criminal Appeal System Make Sense? 8 Criminal Law Review, 2006, p.690.
(6)英格兰和威尔士的起诉书审判适用于重罪案件,由皇室法院一审管辖。参见[英]约翰·斯普莱克著:《英国刑事诉讼程序》(第九版),徐美君等译,中国人民大学出版社2006年版,第1、285页。
(7)参见Andrew Ashworth & Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.395。
(8)Di Bella v.United State, 369 U.S.121, 1962, p.124.
(9)Commonwealth v.Jordan, 469 Mass.134, 2014.
(10)根据禁止双重危险原则,在陪审团审理的案件中,陪审团组成并宣誓后,或在法官审理的案件中,法官开始听取证据后,被告人就处于危险之中了。参见Serfass v.United States, 420 U.S.377, 1975, p.388。
(11)与英国2003年《法案》允许在审判前和审判中提起中间上诉不同,美国联邦和麻州的中间上诉只适用于审判前的证据排除裁定,对于庭审中的证据排除裁定,当事人无权提起中间上诉。
(12)参见Andrew Ashworth & Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.393。
(13)Kate Stith, Risk of Legal Error in Criminal Cases, 57 The University of Chicago Law Review 1, 1990, p.53.
(14)参见[美]理查德·波斯纳著:《法律的经济分析》(第七版),蒋兆康译,法律出版社2012年版,第869-870页。
(15)Mirjan Dama?ka, Of Hearsay and Its Analogues, 76 Minnesota Law Review 425, 1992, p.434.
(16)John Jackson et al., The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 2012, p.72.
(17)Mirjan Dama?ka, Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure, 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 506, 1973, p.523.
(18)Johannes Nijboer, Methods of Investigation and Exclusion of Evidence, in Nijboer & Sprangers ed., Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise, THELA THESIS, 2000, pp.431-432.
(19)参见[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒等:《美国刑事诉讼法精解》(第二卷),魏晓娜译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第667页。
(20)在权利型上诉中,当事人享有启动中间上诉的决定权;在裁量型上诉中,当事人只能提起上诉许可的申请。为行文方便,在此概括称为“提起中间上诉”。
(21)Commonwealth v.Baye, 462 Mass.246, 2012, p.252.
(22)Wayne LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (volume 6), Thomson Reuters, 2017, p.542.
(23)参见United States v.Zisblatt, 172 F.2d 740, 1949, p.743。
(24)J.R.Spencer, Does Our Present Criminal Appeal System Make Sense? 8 Criminal Law Review, 2006, p.688.
(25)Antony Duff et al., The Trial on Trial (volume 1), Hart Publishing, 2004, pp.51, 60.
(26)Ian Dennis, Prosecution Appeals and Retrial for Serious Offences, 8 Criminal Law Review, 2004, p.624.
(27)中间上诉的条件审查并不适用严格的司法证明机制。英美要求提出中间上诉的一方依据一定的证据向法院“保证(certify)”而不是“证明(prove)”满足上诉条件。参见United States v.Bailey, 136 F.3d 1160, 1998, p.1162。
(28)Paul Taylor, Taylor On Criminal Appeals, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2012, p.243.
(29)United States v.Bookhardt, 277 F.3d 558, 2002, p.563.
(30)US Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § SS 290.1 (4) (a) (1975).
(31)向州最高法院法官申请上诉许可时必须提供以下信息和文件:案件编号,初审法院的事实认定和裁决,简要阐述法律依据并解释对司法公正的促进作用,正式审判预计时长,审判日期或下一次听证日期,上诉许可的申请和告知是否在法定期限内,超出期限的必须提交延期申请并详细说明延迟的理由。参见Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Order Regarding Applications to A Single Justice Pursuant to Mass. R.Crim.P.15 (a) (2) (2016), https://www.mass.gov/supreme-judicial-court-rules/applications-to-a-single-justice-pursuant-to-massrcrimp-15a2, 最近访问时间[2019-03-15]。
(32)Bonilla v.Commonwealth, 460 Mass.1014, 2011, p.1014.
(33)Mike McConville & Geoffrey Wilson, The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp.492-493.
(34)Commonwealth v.Cavanaugh, 366 Mass.277, 1974, p.279.
(35)Andrew Ashworth & Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.374.
(36)Regina v.B, [2008] EWCA Crim 1144.
(37)Ornelas v.United States, 517 U.S.690, 1996, p.699.
(38)Commonwealth v.Jordan, 469 Mass.134, 2014, pp.146-147.
(39)Henry Monaghan, Constitutional Fact Review, 85 Columbia Law Review 229, 1985, p.233.
(40)United States v.McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1984, p.1202.
(41)Paul Roberts & Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.218.
(42)Chapman v.California, 386 U.S.18, 1967, pp.23-24.
(43)United States v.Kloehn, 620 F.3d 1122, 2010, p.1130.
(44)Trusty v.State, 308 Md.658, 1987, p.670.
(45)参见李训虎:《变迁中的英美补强规则》,《环球法律评论》2017年第5期,第140页。
(46)沈德咏主编:《严格司法与诉讼制度改革》,法律出版社2017年版,第55-56页。
(47)参见Mirjan Dama?ka, Evidence Law Adrift, Yale University Press, 1997, p.50;[德]科劳斯·缇德曼:《德国刑事诉讼法导论》,载《德国刑事诉讼法典》,宗玉琨译注,知识产权出版社2013年版,第22页。
(48)参见牟绿叶:《论非法证据排除规则和印证证明模式的冲突及弥合路径》,《中外法学》2017年第4期,第1078-1079页。
(49)参见吴洪淇:《证据排除抑或证据把关:审查起诉阶段非法证据排除的实证研究》,《法制与社会发展》2016年第5期,第156-158页。
(50)Andrew Ashworth & Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.396.
(51)Petra Viebig, Illegally Obtained Evidence at the International Criminal Court, ASSER Press, 2016, p.243.
(2)参见陈瑞华:《非法证据排除程序再讨论》,《法学研究》2014年第2期,第179页。
(3)参见许乐:《非法证据排除程序研究》,西南政法大学2016年博士论文,第180页以下。
(4)本文中关于英国中间上诉制度的叙述仅考察了英格兰和威尔士的情况。
(5)J.R.Spencer, Does Our Present Criminal Appeal System Make Sense? 8 Criminal Law Review, 2006, p.690.
(6)英格兰和威尔士的起诉书审判适用于重罪案件,由皇室法院一审管辖。参见[英]约翰·斯普莱克著:《英国刑事诉讼程序》(第九版),徐美君等译,中国人民大学出版社2006年版,第1、285页。
(7)参见Andrew Ashworth & Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.395。
(8)Di Bella v.United State, 369 U.S.121, 1962, p.124.
(9)Commonwealth v.Jordan, 469 Mass.134, 2014.
(10)根据禁止双重危险原则,在陪审团审理的案件中,陪审团组成并宣誓后,或在法官审理的案件中,法官开始听取证据后,被告人就处于危险之中了。参见Serfass v.United States, 420 U.S.377, 1975, p.388。
(11)与英国2003年《法案》允许在审判前和审判中提起中间上诉不同,美国联邦和麻州的中间上诉只适用于审判前的证据排除裁定,对于庭审中的证据排除裁定,当事人无权提起中间上诉。
(12)参见Andrew Ashworth & Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.393。
(13)Kate Stith, Risk of Legal Error in Criminal Cases, 57 The University of Chicago Law Review 1, 1990, p.53.
(14)参见[美]理查德·波斯纳著:《法律的经济分析》(第七版),蒋兆康译,法律出版社2012年版,第869-870页。
(15)Mirjan Dama?ka, Of Hearsay and Its Analogues, 76 Minnesota Law Review 425, 1992, p.434.
(16)John Jackson et al., The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence, Cambridge University Press, 2012, p.72.
(17)Mirjan Dama?ka, Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure, 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 506, 1973, p.523.
(18)Johannes Nijboer, Methods of Investigation and Exclusion of Evidence, in Nijboer & Sprangers ed., Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise, THELA THESIS, 2000, pp.431-432.
(19)参见[美]约书亚·德雷斯勒等:《美国刑事诉讼法精解》(第二卷),魏晓娜译,北京大学出版社2009年版,第667页。
(20)在权利型上诉中,当事人享有启动中间上诉的决定权;在裁量型上诉中,当事人只能提起上诉许可的申请。为行文方便,在此概括称为“提起中间上诉”。
(21)Commonwealth v.Baye, 462 Mass.246, 2012, p.252.
(22)Wayne LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (volume 6), Thomson Reuters, 2017, p.542.
(23)参见United States v.Zisblatt, 172 F.2d 740, 1949, p.743。
(24)J.R.Spencer, Does Our Present Criminal Appeal System Make Sense? 8 Criminal Law Review, 2006, p.688.
(25)Antony Duff et al., The Trial on Trial (volume 1), Hart Publishing, 2004, pp.51, 60.
(26)Ian Dennis, Prosecution Appeals and Retrial for Serious Offences, 8 Criminal Law Review, 2004, p.624.
(27)中间上诉的条件审查并不适用严格的司法证明机制。英美要求提出中间上诉的一方依据一定的证据向法院“保证(certify)”而不是“证明(prove)”满足上诉条件。参见United States v.Bailey, 136 F.3d 1160, 1998, p.1162。
(28)Paul Taylor, Taylor On Criminal Appeals, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2012, p.243.
(29)United States v.Bookhardt, 277 F.3d 558, 2002, p.563.
(30)US Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure § SS 290.1 (4) (a) (1975).
(31)向州最高法院法官申请上诉许可时必须提供以下信息和文件:案件编号,初审法院的事实认定和裁决,简要阐述法律依据并解释对司法公正的促进作用,正式审判预计时长,审判日期或下一次听证日期,上诉许可的申请和告知是否在法定期限内,超出期限的必须提交延期申请并详细说明延迟的理由。参见Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Order Regarding Applications to A Single Justice Pursuant to Mass. R.Crim.P.15 (a) (2) (2016), https://www.mass.gov/supreme-judicial-court-rules/applications-to-a-single-justice-pursuant-to-massrcrimp-15a2, 最近访问时间[2019-03-15]。
(32)Bonilla v.Commonwealth, 460 Mass.1014, 2011, p.1014.
(33)Mike McConville & Geoffrey Wilson, The Handbook of the Criminal Justice Process, Oxford University Press, 2002, pp.492-493.
(34)Commonwealth v.Cavanaugh, 366 Mass.277, 1974, p.279.
(35)Andrew Ashworth & Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.374.
(36)Regina v.B, [2008] EWCA Crim 1144.
(37)Ornelas v.United States, 517 U.S.690, 1996, p.699.
(38)Commonwealth v.Jordan, 469 Mass.134, 2014, pp.146-147.
(39)Henry Monaghan, Constitutional Fact Review, 85 Columbia Law Review 229, 1985, p.233.
(40)United States v.McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1984, p.1202.
(41)Paul Roberts & Adrian Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.218.
(42)Chapman v.California, 386 U.S.18, 1967, pp.23-24.
(43)United States v.Kloehn, 620 F.3d 1122, 2010, p.1130.
(44)Trusty v.State, 308 Md.658, 1987, p.670.
(45)参见李训虎:《变迁中的英美补强规则》,《环球法律评论》2017年第5期,第140页。
(46)沈德咏主编:《严格司法与诉讼制度改革》,法律出版社2017年版,第55-56页。
(47)参见Mirjan Dama?ka, Evidence Law Adrift, Yale University Press, 1997, p.50;[德]科劳斯·缇德曼:《德国刑事诉讼法导论》,载《德国刑事诉讼法典》,宗玉琨译注,知识产权出版社2013年版,第22页。
(48)参见牟绿叶:《论非法证据排除规则和印证证明模式的冲突及弥合路径》,《中外法学》2017年第4期,第1078-1079页。
(49)参见吴洪淇:《证据排除抑或证据把关:审查起诉阶段非法证据排除的实证研究》,《法制与社会发展》2016年第5期,第156-158页。
(50)Andrew Ashworth & Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, p.396.
(51)Petra Viebig, Illegally Obtained Evidence at the International Criminal Court, ASSER Press, 2016, p.243.