刑事證據開示之考察：比較法、理論與應用

「刑事證據開示（Criminal Discovery or Disclosure）」制度，為源於對抗式訴訟體制（Adversary System）當事人揭露或知悉證據資料之制度，目的為使當事人於審前進行訴訟準備，以避免訴訟突襲。相對於此，我國現行的閱卷制度，沿襲歐陸體制，為有別於證據開示制度的另一種「獲知卷證」模式。然而，誠如世界各國多融合其訴訟體制而發展成適於本國之制度，「證據開示」一詞及其研究，應不妨以廣義而宏觀的角度觀察，以兼容並蓄。筆者於參與我國制度研擬與推動的過程中，深感此議題的重要性，因而嘗試深入研究。本論文以美國、德國及日本等國學理、法制與實務的分析與檢討為中心，並參考美國、加拿大、法國、義大利及韓國等國法制實況，探求證據開示制度之理論結構，藉此形塑我國未來制度之樣貌並檢視三階段證據開示草案之內容，最後提出具體的立法建議。綜合分析各國制度後，本文發現「正當法律程序」或「公平審判」等原則，為多數外國立法例證據開示制度之法理基礎，且內含「開示程序之啟動」、「開示之時期」、「開示義務之範圍」、「得拒絕或限制開示之範圍」、「爭議處理機制」、「違反開示義務之處置」及「目的外使用之規制」等要素，構成其實際的制度內容。以前述分析為基礎，復參酌大法官解釋之精神，未來我國採行更為深化的當事人進行體制後所形塑之證據開示制度，也應以憲法層次的正當法律程序原則、公平審判原則作為其法理基礎。據此，目前「國民參與刑事審判法草案」三階段證據開示之內容，其與現制間「二元體系」的差別待遇，不僅難以通過合憲性檢驗，實務運作上也會造成制度銜接與程序轉軌時的難題。因而，三階段證據開示之設計，並不適合我國引進。從未來我國證據開示制度應以「正當法律程序」或「公平審判」作為法理基礎之觀點、美國及日本採行個別開示後的冤罪問題及擴大開示範圍的立法趨勢，並參酌其他當事人進行訴訟體制國家採行全面開示的立法例，本文認為我國未來證據開示制度，應採取「原則全面開示，例外限制開示」的立法模式，才能充分保障被告審前階段的「卷證資訊獲知權」，並兼顧發現真實之刑事訴訟目的。文末也就草案條文提出修正建議，期盼經由本文的拋磚引玉，促進對此討論之廣度與深度，以建立適合我國需求而相應時代的證據開示制度。

關鍵字

證據開示；對抗式訴訟體制；閱卷；預斷排除；公平法院

並列摘要

The concept of “discovery” or “disclosure” in criminal procedure arose from Anglo-Saxon adversary system, which is set for preventing surprise trial and making pre-trial preparation. Although our criminal system based upon civil law and file inspection system, but the proposal of Japanese indictment structure, which is called as “Non Dossier-Producing System“,had been discussed for decades.Non Dossier-Producing System is designed to eliminate the prejudgment of adjudicators and quest for fair trial. Given that the prosecutors are not allowed to send case files to court while indicting the criminals under Non Dossier-Producing System,there is necessity to set a litigants-led procedure of discovering or disclosing litigation information in order to examining prosecutors’evidences from opposing views. Recently,Judicial Yuan announced the draft of“Citizen Participation in Criminal Procedure Act”,which had incorporated the articles of Non Dossier-Producing System and criminal discovery.According to the draft,the prosecutors should not send the case files including evidences of documents or objects to court when indicting the criminals, so the defendant and his attorney could only receive evidences of the case from the prosecutors’disclosure.For this reason,the draft adopted Japanese“Three-Stage Discovery“ structure to let the prosecutors disclose materials and information to the defendant. On the other hand, it also provided that the defendant should disclose his defense such as alibi or insanity when the prosecutors have completed his duty.Besides Japanese structure, there also have different types of criminal discovery models all over the world.This article tried to discuss pre-trial criminal discovery system by means of conducting comparative research on foreign law,and propose practice suggestions by reviewing the new draft and present system in Taiwan. According to the result of comparative analysis, this paper have found that the principles of "Due Process" and "Fair Trial" are the legal basis of criminal discovery system in majority of countries,and elements such as "Initiation of the Discovery Process", " Period of Disclosure",“Scope of disclosure”,“Scope of the refusal or restriction of disclosure, "Dispute Resolution Mechanism", "Disposal of Violation of the Disclosure Obligation" and "Regulations for Use Outside the Purpose" are necessarily included. Based on the analysis and the spirit on interpretations of Justice of the Constitutional Court,Taiwan’s criminal discovery system in the future should still follow the Principle of Due Process and Fair Trial.In other words,these principles should be served as the basis of constitutionality.Accordingly,the ”Three-Stage Discovery “ structure of the draft is not only difficult to pass the constitutionality test, but also lack of integration and feasibility with the present system.Therefore,this model could hardly be taken as ideal model for Taiwan. From perspective above,“ Due Process”and "Fair Trial" should be the basis of constitutionality in future criminal discovery system of Taiwan.Given that there is necessity of considering the unfavorable outcome and the legislative trend of expanding the scope of disclosure in American and Japanese systems,as well as exeamples of “open-file model”in other legal systems,this dissertation believes that the future criminal discovery system in Taiwan should disclose evidence and information comprehensively to protect the defendant’s right of inspection.Besides that,the draft provisions are also proposed to be amended,and the breadth and depth of discussion was hoped to be facilitated through this dissertation,thus we could establish appropriate criminal discovery system for Taiwan.