審檢壟斷鑑定與公平審判－論刑事訴訟法第198條及第208條之合憲性

Courts and Prosecutors' Oligopoly on Requesting Expert Examination, Leading to Unfair Trial: Discussion on the constitutionality of Articles 198 and 208 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

林俊宏(Chun-hung Lin)

《律師法學期刊》 1期 (2018/12) Pp. 57-78

摘要

依現行刑事訴訟法第198條及第208條之規定與法院實務操作結果，科學鑑定進入法庭並未有實質門檻可言，只要是法官或檢察官所囑託進行的鑑定，就可供法院援引為判決的依據，完全欠缺實質審查科學鑑定得否進入法院的程序。且在刑事訴訟法的規範設計，檢察官所囑託進行的鑑定，即得做為證據，不僅使鑑定證據的引入，偏向於檢察官，使檢察官先天立於有利於被告的地位，更反使鑑定是否可信之舉證責任倒置於被告，明顯違反無罪推定原則的要求。因此，現行刑事訴訟法就鑑定證據的採用，明顯違反公平法院的原則，使被告與檢察官的訴訟上武器不對等，被告先天立於不利之地位，亦有違公民與政治權利國際公約與中華民國憲法對人民正當程序、訴訟權保障及無罪推定的要求。

關鍵字

科學鑑定 ； 證據能力 ； 舉證責任 ； 公平法院 ； 無罪推定 ； 武器對等 ； 平等原則 ； 比例原則 ； 聽審請求權 ； 正當法律程序

並列摘要

According to Criminal Procedure Law §198 and §208 and court practice, it is still lack of threshold standards for scientific evidence/expert report admitted into evidence in the criminal court. Any evidence and/or analysis ordered by the court or the prosecutor can be admitted into evidence. This evidence admitted rule creates erroneous tendency that the prosecutor is in a superior position than the defendant to introduce the evidence and the burden of proof of the credibility of the expert report had been transferred to the defendant; a clear violation of the presumption of innocence. As such, Taiwan's admissibility standard for scientific evidence violates the ICCPR and the Taiwanese constitution's protection of due process to its citizens, as well as rights to a fair trial and enjoyment of the presumption of innocence.

並列關鍵字

scientific evidence ； evidence permissibility ； the burden of proof ； impartial tribunal ； the presumption of innocence ； the principle of equality of arms ； principle of equality ； principle of proportionality ； right to be heard ； due process