摘要
文章从立法机关态度、阅卷权来源、犯罪嫌疑人被告人特点、阅卷或告知证据可能导致的消极后果、法律对全面示证规定的时机等六个方面,对律师核实证据"等于认可了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人阅卷权""表明律师可以将案内不同证据告知犯罪嫌疑人、被告人"的观点,进一步提出了质疑。从核实证据的目的、主体、范围、方式等方面,对"核实证据"的含义作了解读。同时认为,从应然角度来看,为了使无辩护人的犯罪嫌疑人、被告人实现"平等武装",提高"控辩协商"或自行辩护质量,减少言词笔录和"打包"举证对公正审判可能带来的消极影响,节约司法资源、提高诉讼效率,建议法律赋予无辩护人的认罪认罚嫌疑人和不认罪认罚的被告人以有限制的阅卷权。
This article further raises the question over the opinion that the evidence verification of the lawyer is equal to the recognition of the criminal suspect and the defendant＇s right to review the files and indicates that the lawyer can inform the suspect and the defendant of different evidences in the case from six aspects including the attitude of the legislature, origin of the right to review the files, characteristics of the suspect and the defendant, negative consequence that could be caused by reviewing or informing the evidence, and opportunity of comprehensively evidence showing stipulation by law. The paper analyses the meaning of evidence verification from aspects such as the purpose, subject, scope and mode of the evidence verification. At the same time, from obligatory perspective, in order to realize the ＂equality of arms＂ of the suspect and defendant without a lawyer, improve the quality of ＂prosecution and defense consultation＂ and the defense by oneself, reduce the negative effects on the fair trial brought by verbal record and ＂packing＂ evidence, save judicial resources, and improve the efficiency of litigation, the author suggests that the law gives limited right of reviewing the files to undefended suspect who admits guilt and accepts penalty and the defendant who does not plead guilty.
出处
《中国法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2018年第4期44-64,共21页
China Legal Science
