摘要
美国禁止双重危险条款的初衷在于保护被告的正当利益,但在司法适用中却不足以防止控诉权的滥用,学者和法官们也在司法判例的经验积累中不断探寻着对被告人利益保护的周全之策。美国民事诉讼中的间接禁止反言规则应用于刑事领域,从宏观上是对禁止双重危险宪法保护的补充,从微观上也影响着法官对证据可采性的判断。本文正是从这两个层面展开,以美国法院的司法判例和学说理论的发展纵贯文脉,对间接禁止反言规则为被告提供的权利保护所能达到的界限予以思考。
The original purpose of double jeopardy clause in the United States is to protect the defendant＇s legitimate interests, but it is insuffi cient to prevent the abuse of prosecution. Based on accumulated precedents experience, scholars and judges constantly strive to seek a comprehensive mechanism to protect the defendant＇s interests. The adoption of collateral estoppel doctrine in criminal trials, not only furthers the constitutional protection provided by the double jeopardy clause, but also affects the judges＇ determination on the admissibility of evidence. This article sets its discussion from the two perspectives. Based on a deep inspection of the development of the U.S. courts＇ precedents and legal doctrines, this article provides profound considerations of the limits of the protection provided by the collateral estoppel doctrine to the defendants.
作者
胡萌
Hu Meng(Institute of Justice,East China University of Political Science and Law,Shanghai 201620.)
出处
《证据科学》
2018年第3期271-280,共10页
Evidence Science
基金
"中国博士后科学基金"资助项目(2017M611509)
关键词
禁止双重危险
间接禁止反言
证据可采性
Double jeopardy
Collateral estoppel
Admissibility of evidence
