美国意见证据可采性研究

发布时间：2018-01-17 22:27

本文关键词：美国意见证据可采性研究　出处：《华东政法大学》2009年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

更多相关文章： 意见证据 专家证人 可采性 可靠性

【摘要】： 一般而言,意见证据是不具有证据效力的,也不存在“可采性”问题,但如果“意见证据”一词,与“可采性”一词连用,便表示讨论的是一种特殊情况,特指专家证人提供的意见证据。二十世纪以前,美国法院并没有针对意见证据规定区别于一般证人证言的采信规则。进入上个世纪以来,众多数据表明,意见证据的运用已经越来越广泛。判定什么样的意见证据具有可采性并非是件容易的事情,当今美国成熟的、系统的意见证据可采性规则的出现也并非一蹴而就,在美国这样一个特定的判例法国家,通过对判例规则的研究,按照判例发展为主线,可以提供一种研究视角;将理论系统化,以某一权威的法律文本作为参照,从具体条文入手,概括、提炼,可以提供另一种研究视角。在美国,意见证据可采性的可靠性标准经历了弗赖依规则、多伯特规则、锦湖轮胎案等变化。在弗赖依规则与多伯特规则之间,《联邦证据规则》起到了很好的促进作用——在《联邦证据规则》的文本支持下,多伯特案以判例的形式,促使在联邦法院系统意见证据的可采性由一元的、简单化的“普遍一致”转向综合权衡四项标准。接下来的锦湖轮胎案更是将意见证据的适用范围由传统的“科学”领域,推广到“技术及其他专业知识”领域,是在意见证据的应用范围上对《联邦证据规则》的一次践行。纵观美国意见证据可采性规则近一个世纪的演绎,其脉络整体是朝着“规则越加宽松化、审查越加严厉化”的方向发展的,体现其中的是“传统对抗制”、“现代经济效率”等不同价值取向的博弈。这种趋势有其内在的合理性,因公正性、开放性、对当事人主义的尊重及自我修正性,而使意见证据老而弥坚,在新的历史时期爆发出强劲的生命力。本文的意义在于,通过对文本与判例,特别是对后者的研究,以达到厘定相关概念,理清宏观脉络,梳理出意见证据发展的历史主线的目的,最终有助于意见证据在司法实践中的正确运用;同时,也便于从理论的高度,阐述法律文化中合理的因子,借鉴不同法律文化的优势,把握意见证据在未来的发展方向。
[Abstract]:Generally speaking, opinion evidence has no evidentiary effect and there is no question of "admissibility", but if the term "opinion evidence" is used with the term "admissibility", it indicates that the discussion is a special case. Evidence of opinion given by an expert witness. Before 20th century, the United States courts did not prescribe rules of acceptance different from those of ordinary witnesses in respect of opinion evidence. Since 0th century, a large number of data show that. Opinion evidence has been used more and more widely. It is not easy to judge what opinion evidence is admissible. The emergence of systematic opinion evidence admissibility rules is not overnight, in a specific case law country like the United States, through the study of the case rules, according to the development of cases as the main line. Can provide a research perspective; Systematizing the theory, taking a certain authoritative legal text as a reference, starting with specific provisions, summarizing and refining, can provide another perspective of research in the United States. The reliability criteria for admissibility of opinion evidence have undergone changes in the Fry rule, the Dobbert rule, the Jinhu tyre case, etc., between the Fry rule and the Dobert rule. The Federal rules of evidence played a good role in facilitating-with the support of the text of the Federal rules of evidence, the Dobert case, in the form of a case, prompted the admissibility of opinion evidence in the federal court system to be unitary. The simplified "universal consensus" shifted to a comprehensive balance of four criteria. The next Jinhu tire case extended the application of opinion evidence from traditional "science" to "technical and other expertise". It is a practice of the Federal rules of evidence in the application of opinion evidence. Looking at the interpretation of the rule of admissibility of evidence in the United States for nearly a century, the whole context of the rule develops towards the direction of "the more relaxed the rules and the harsher the examination", which embodies the "traditional adversarial system". "Modern economic efficiency" and other different value orientation of the game. This trend has its inherent rationality, due to fairness, openness, respect for the parties and self-correction, and make the opinion evidence old and firm. Strong vitality erupted in the new historical period. The significance of this paper lies in the text and jurisprudence, especially the study of the latter, in order to determine the relevant concepts, clear the macro context, and sort out the historical main line of opinion evidence development. Finally, it is helpful for the correct application of opinion evidence in judicial practice; At the same time, it is convenient to expound the reasonable factors in legal culture from the perspective of theory, draw lessons from the advantages of different legal cultures, and grasp the developing direction of opinion evidence in the future.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D971.2;DD915.13

【参考文献】