《民意，誰說了算？人民知情的抉擇》註腳-第十二章

第十二章：只相信、不質疑的填鴨式法學教育

                    探究法律真意

註腳

【1】 陳玟伶，椰林會客室，法律系的教與學—曾宛如老師專訪，國立台灣大學教學發展中心，2012年5月30日，http://ctld.ntu.edu.tw/_epaper/news_detail.php?nid=77（最後瀏覽日：2016年3月12日）。

【2】 同上。

【3】 同上。

【4】 同上。

【5】 楊智傑，千萬別來念法律，五南圖書，2013年，頁127-128。

【6】 California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158 (U.S. 1970) (“Confrontation...forces the witness to submit to cross-examination, the ‘greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth’”).

【7】 Deborah J. Merritt & Ric Simmons, Learning Evidence: From the Federal Rules to the Courtroom, pp. 699-701, West, 2nd Ed. (“Key Concepts … Confrontation Means Cross-examination…the Supreme Court has long equated confrontation with cross-examination. Crawford confirms that concept by declaring that the Sixth Amendment gives criminal defendants the right to test all evidence against them “in the crucible of cross-examination.”); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (“To be sure, the Clause’s ultimate goal is to ensure reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee. It commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. The Clause thus reflects a judgment, not only about the desirability of reliable evidence (a point on which there could be little dissent), but about how reliability can best be determined.”).

【8】 Salinger v. U.S., 272 U.S. 542, 548 (U.S. 1926) (“The right of confrontation did not originate with the provision in the Sixth Amendment, but was a common-law right having recognized exceptions.”).

【9】 Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 141 (U.S. 1999) (J. Breyer concurring) (“The right of an accused to meet his accusers face-to-face is mentioned in, among other things, the Bible, Shakespeare, and 16th and 17th century British statutes, cases, and treatises. See The Bible, Acts 25:16…”). 使徒行傳25章16節：對他們說，無論什麼人，被告還沒有和原告對質，未得機會分訴所告他的事，就先定他的罪，這不是羅馬人的條例 (“It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face to face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges.”).

【10】Const. Amd VI. (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right… to be confronted with the witnesses against him....”).

【11】Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 845 (U.S. 1990) (“The central concern of the Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant by subjecting it to rigorous testing in the context of an adversary proceeding before the trier of fact.”).

【12】California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158 (U.S. 1970) (“Confrontation: (1) insures that the witness will give his statements under oath -- thus impressing him with the seriousness of the matter and guarding against the lie by the possibility of a penalty for perjury; (2) forces the witness to submit to cross-examination, the "greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth"; [Footnote 11: 5 Wigmore § 1367] (3) permits the jury that is to decide the defendant's fate to observe the demeanor of the witness in making his statement, thus aiding the jury in assessing his credibility.”). 美國憲法保障刑事被告享有陪審團裁判的權利，稱為“jury trial”，作出的裁判稱為“verdict”，但刑事被告有權放棄，改由法官裁判，稱為“bench trial”，作出的裁判稱為“judgment”。即使是由陪審團作出裁判，法官若認為陪審團的裁判與證據不符，有權推翻陪審團的裁判另行作出裁判。

【13】Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 418 (U.S. 1965) (“Our cases construing the clause hold that a primary interest secured by it is the right of cross-examination; an adequate opportunity for cross-examination may satisfy the clause even in the absence of physical confrontation.”) The 6th Amendment’s Confrontation Clause, FindLaw, http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/the-6th-amendment-s-confrontation-clause.html (last visited May 09, 2016) (“For in-court statements, the confrontation clause essentially means that the defendants has a right to cross-examine witnesses in order to challenge their testimony.”). 聯邦憲法的該項保障，已透過美國憲增第十四條之正當法律程序條款適用於全美各州，Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (U.S. 1965) (“[A]pplying Sixth Amendment to the States.”).

【14】王兆鵬，刑事訴訟講義，元照，2005年，頁597-598。

【15】同上，頁598。

【16】蔡家瑜，對質詰問權限制與傳聞法則之例外--評最高法院 95 年台上字第 5160 號判決，司法新聲司法官第47期學員法學研究報告，頁2528，參照王兆鵬，註14，頁601。

【17】同上，參照黃東熊，對質與交互詰問，刑事訴訟法研究第二冊，1994 年 4 月，頁91。

【18】李永然，刑事被告對交互詰問的基本認識！獨家報導第1148期，2014年，頁18，參照王兆鵬，註14，頁302。李永然的註腳有誤，應為第601頁。

【19】黃翰義，我國實務上交互詰問形成動向之解析，軍法專刊第56卷第1期，2010年，頁93-125，https://www.mnd.gov.tw/Upload/201003/(%E6%B3%95%E5%AD%B8%E8%AB%96%E8%91%973)--%E6%88%91%E5%9C%8B%E5%AF%A6%E5%8B%99%E4%B8%8A%E4%BA%A4%E4%BA%92%E8%A9%B0%E5%95%8F%E5%BD%A2%E6%88%90%E5%8B%95%E5%90%91%E4%B9%8B%E8%A7%A3%E6%9E%90--%E9%BB%83%E7%BF%B0%E7%BE%A9.pdf （最後瀏覽日：2016年5月10日）。

【20】彭明輝，如何培養批判性思考與公共精神，清大彭明輝的部落格，2014年6月9日，http://mhperng.blogspot.tw/2014/06/blog-post_9.html（最後瀏覽日：2016年4月10日）。

【21】1928年版刑事訴訟法第61條：「被告有數人時，應分別訊問，其未經訊問者，不得在場，但遇有必要情形，得命與他被告或證人對質。」；現行刑事訴訟法第97條：「被告有數人時，應分別訊問之；其未經訊問者，不得在場。但因發見真實之必要，得命其對質。被告亦得請求對質。對於被告之請求對質，除顯無必要者外，不得拒絕。」；第184條：「證人有數人者，應分別訊問之；其未經訊問者，非經許可，不得在場。因發見真實之必要，得命證人與他證人或被告對質，亦得依被告之聲請，命與證人對質。」。

【22】刑事訴訟法第184條：「證人有數人者，應分別訊問之；其未經訊問者，非經許可，不得在場。因發見真實之必要，得命證人與他證人或被告對質，亦得依被告之聲請，命與證人對質。」。

【23】刑事訴訟法第166-6條：「法院依職權傳喚之證人或鑑定人，經審判長訊問後，當事人、代理人或辯護人得詰問之，其詰問之次序由審判長定之。證人、鑑定人經當事人、代理人或辯護人詰問後，審判長得續行訊問。」

【24】葉雪鵬，什麼是刑事訴訟上的「對質」？，發表日期2008年11月5日，2016年1月13日刊登於法務部網站，http://www.moj.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=140039&ctNode=30953&mp=095 （最後瀏覽日：2016年5月9日）。

【25】Robert Farb, Asserting the Fifth Amendment in Court and the Granting of Immunity to a Witness, North Carolina Criminal Law, August 7, 2014 (“A criminal defendant has the right under the Fifth Amendment privilege to decline to take the stand. If a defendant decides not to testify, the State or a judge may not call the defendant to the stand, and a codefendant may not call the defendant to the stand at their joint trial. However, a defendant who voluntarily takes the stand and testifies in his or her own behalf cannot invoke the privilege on cross-examination concerning matters made relevant by direct examination. When a defendant exercises his or her Fifth Amendment privilege by not testifying at trial, any reference by the State or the trial court about the defendant’s election not to testify violates the Fifth Amendment.”).

【26】司法院，交互詰問制度，http://www.judicial.gov.tw/work/work02/work02-04.asp （最後瀏覽日：2016年5月9日）。

【27】「司法改革十週年的回顧與展望」會議實錄，刑事訴訟改革(一)，交互詰問制度，中央研究院法律學研究所籌備處，2009年。

【28】張淳淙，論刑事證據之排除法則，2005年，http://www.rqq5.com/899872635/（最後瀏覽日：2016年3月13日）；刑事訴訟法第156條：「被告之自白，非出於強暴、脅迫、利誘、詐欺、疲勞訊問、違法羈押或其他不正之方法，且與事實相符者，得為證據。」；第158-2條：「違背第九十三條之一第二項、第一百條之三第一項之規定，所取得被告或犯罪嫌疑人之自白及其他不利之陳述，不得作為證據。但經證明其違背非出於惡意，且該自白或陳述係出於自由意志者，不在此限。檢察事務官、司法警察官或司法警察詢問受拘提、逮捕之被告或犯罪嫌疑人時，違反第九十五條第二款、第三款之規定者，準用前項規定。」。

【29】Legal Information Institute, Exclusionary Rule, Cornell University Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule (last visited April 04, 2016) (“The exclusionary rule prevents the government from using most evidence gathered in violation of the United States Constitution. The exclusionary rule applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment, see Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), to improperly elicited self-incriminatory statements gathered in violation of the Fifth Amendment, see Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 439 (1966), and to evidence gained in situations where the government violated defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel, see Miranda. The rule does not apply in civil cases, including deportation hearings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032.”).

【30】Id. (“If evidence that falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence, subject to a few exceptions. Such subsequent evidence is called fruit of the poisonous tree.’”) Cornell University Law School, https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/exclusionary_rule (last visited April 04, 2016).

【31】張淳淙，註28。

【32】同上。

【33】張羽忻，民事訴訟法證據排除法則之研究—論違法取證之證據能力排除，48期學員法學研究報告，2008年，http://ja.lawbank.com.tw/pdf2/1013-1030.pdf（最後瀏覽日：2016年5月9日）。

【34】U.S. v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433, 455 (U.S. 1976) (“[W]e conclude that exclusion from federal civil proceedings of evidence unlawfully seized by a state criminal enforcement officer has not been shown to have a sufficient likelihood of deterring the conduct of the state police so that it outweighs the societal costs imposed by the exclusion. This Court, therefore, is not justified in so extending the exclusionary rule.”).

【35】黃國昌，程序法學的實證研究，元照出版，2011年，頁424-25。

【36】F.R.E. § 401 (“Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.”).

【37】F.R.E. § 402 (“General Admissibility of Relevant Evidence Relevant evidence is admissible unless any of the following provides otherwise: the United States Constitution; a federal statute; these rules; or other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court. Irrelevant evidence is not admissible.”).

【38】F.R.E.§§ 701-703 (“Rule 701. Opinion Testimony by Lay Witnesses If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form of an opinion is limited to one that is: (a) rationally based on the witness’s perception; (b) helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony or to determining a fact in issue; and (c) not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge within the scope of Rule 702. Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. Rule 703. Bases of an Expert An expert may base an opinion on facts or data in the case that the expert has been made aware of or personally observed. If experts in the particular field would reasonably rely on those kinds of facts or data in forming an opinion on the subject, they need not be admissible for the opinion to be admitted. But if the facts or data would otherwise be inadmissible, the proponent of the opinion may disclose them to the jury only if their probative value in helping the jury evaluate the opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.”).

【39】Alan Duke, How Did Woman’s Body Come to be in L.A. Hotel Water Tank? CNN (February 23, 2013), http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/21/us/california-hotel-water-corpse/ (last visited May 04, 2016).

【40】司法院，司法院發表微電影「裁量之間」宣導人民參與審判制度，司法周刊電子報1747期，2015年5 月15日，http://www.judicial.gov.tw/jw9706/1747_main.html（最後瀏覽日：2016年5月9日）。

【41】F.R.E. § 401.

【42】F.R.E. § 403 (“The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”).

【43】Indiana University-Bloomington, Rule 403 Balancing,  http://law.indiana.edu/instruction/tanford/b723/outline/05-relevancy2.html (last visited May 09, 2016) (“The extent to which information UNFAIRLY arouses the emotions of the jury. Emotionalism is unfair if it is not connected to the facts of the case. For example, evidence of child abuse is always emotional, but whether it is unfairly emotional depends on the case. If the defendant is charged with burglary, getting the jury all riled up about child abuse is unfair, but if the defendant is charged with child abuse, the emotionalism is inherent in the case itself, and is "fair" prejudice.”).

【44】Id. (“2. Determining ‘probative value’ is at the discretion of the judge. In general, it is determined by: a) How logically related is the evidence to the key disputes? b) How important is the issue to the resolution of the case? c) How necessary is the evidence (i.e., how much other evidence with lower prejudicial effect has already been introduced or will be introduced?) d) Remoteness (how far removed in space and time from the people, places, and events being litigated)).

【45】黃國昌，註35。

【46】 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures Rule 12. (“(3) Motions That Must Be Made Before Trial. The following defenses, objections, and requests must be raised by pretrial motion if the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits:(C) suppression of evidence.”).

【47】F.R.E. § 103 (“(a) Preserving a Claim of Error. A party may claim error in a ruling to admit or exclude evidence only if the error affects a substantial right of the party and: (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the record: (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and (B) states the specific ground, unless it was apparent from the context; or (2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party informs the court of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the context.”); Rule 105 (“If the court admits evidence that is admissible against a party or for a purpose — but not against another party or for another purpose — the court, on timely request, must restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly.”).

【48】Harvard University Law School, 2016 Course Catalog, http://hls.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/catalog/index.html?page=7 (last visited May 10, 2016).

【49】Id., at http://hls.harvard.edu/academics/curriculum/catalog/index.html?page=10 (last visited May 10, 2016).

【50】TheFreeDictionary.com, http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Automobile+Searches (last visited May 10, 2016) (“The U.S. Constitution guarantees U.S. Citizens freedom from ‘unreasonable searches and seizures.’ In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S. Ct. 507, L. Ed. 2d 576 (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court established the principle that a warrant issued by a ‘natural and detached magistrate’ must be obtained before a government authority may breach the individual privacy that the Fourth Amendment secures. The Katz decision held that ‘searches that are conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval by judge or magistrate, are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions. “Over the years, the Court has recognized a number of exceptions to this rule that allow the police to conduct a legal search without a warrant in certain situations. One of these exceptions is for automobile searches.’”).

【51】台灣陪審團協會，陪審制下之相關配套措施：律師的採證及證據開示制度，2015年6月26日，https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYWEEzKRyxI（最後瀏覽日：2016年5月9日）。

【52】Aaron Dewald, What Is Critical Thinking? YouTube, August 1, 2013, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0yEAE5owWw (last visited March 14, 2016).

【53】台灣陪審團協會，註51（時間：55：10到55：33；1：00：46到1：01：54）。

【54】痞客邦，台北大學進修紀實：刑事訴訟法(林超駿老師)，http://noname99.pixnet.net/blog/post/206564971-%E5%88%91%E4%BA%8B%E8%A8%B4%E8%A8%9F%E6%B3%95(%E6%9E%97%E8%B6%85%E9%A7%BF%E8%80%81%E5%B8%AB)（最後瀏覽日：2016年5月13日）。

【55】台灣陪審團協會，註51 (時間：54：33到55：07）。

【56】同上，(時間：53：52到54：30）。