题名

對質詰問權與傳聞法則－比較法之探索（下）

DOI

10.6509/TLM.200705_58(5).0002

作者

林輝煌

关键词
期刊名称

法令月刊

卷期/出版年月

58卷5期（2007 / 05 / 01）

页次

21 - 37

内容语文

繁體中文
主题分类 社會科學 > 法律學
参考文献
  1. The justice of England has never been so degraded and injured as by the condemnation of Sir Walter Raleigh. 1 Jardine, Criminal Trials 520 (1832).
  2. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.S. 730, 739-40 (1987)
  3. 1 & 2 Phil. & M., c. 13 91554), and 2 & 3 id., c. 10 (1555)
  4. Dixon v. State, 605 P.2d 882 (Alaska 1980)
  5. Olden v. Kentucky, 488 U.S. 227, 231-33 (1988)
  6. 2 Debates on the Federal Constitution 110-111 (J. Elliot 2d ed. 1863
  7. 448 U.S. 56 (1980)
  8. Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415 (1965)
  9. 刑事訴訟法第166 條至第167 條之7
  10. 2 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the crown c. 46, 3, pp. 603-604 )T. Leach 6th ed. 1787)
  11. 民國92年2月6日修正公布之刑事訴訟法第159條修正理由二。
  12. 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 373-374 (1768)
  13. Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719(1968)
  14. Nevels v. Parrat, 596 F.2d 344 (8th Cir. 1979), certiorari denied 444 U.S. 859, 100 S.Ct. 122, 62 L.Ed.2d 79
  15. People v. Moscat, 777 N.Y.S.2d 875 (N.Y.Crim.Ct. March 25, 2004)
  16. U.S. v. Arriagada, 451 F.2d 487 (4th Cir. 1971).
  17. 1 J. Stephen, History of the Criminal Law of England 326 (1883)
  18. King v. Websteer, 1 Leach 12, 168 Eng. Rep. 108, 109 (1739).
  19. 391 U.S. 123 (1968).
  20. Kennedy v. Cardwell, 487 F 2d 101 (6th Cir. 1973), certiorari denied 416 U.S. 959, 94 S.Ct. 1976, 40 L.Ed.2d 310.
  21. 9 W. Holdsworth, History of English Law 216-217, 228 (3d ed. 1944).
  22. State v. Vaught, 682 N.W.2d 284 (Neb. 2004)
  23. 399 U.S. 149 (1970)
  24. Dale A. Nance, Rethinking Confrontation After Crawford, Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies, Working Paper 04-20 Oct. 2004 This paper can be downloaded from the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:http//ssrn.com/abstract=603543.
  25. 1 G. Gilbert, Evidence 216 (C. Lofft ed. 1791), at 585, n.(k)
  26. 124 S.Ct. 1354 (March 8, 2004).
  27. U.S. v. McClain, 377 F.3d 219, 221 n.1 (2d Cir. 2004)
  28. John C. Douglass, Crawford v. Washington: The Confrontation Clause and State Hearsay Law,http://www.courts.state.va.us/ed/updates/2004 09 crawford v. washington douglass presentation.pdf
  29. Wojculewicz v. Cummings, 145 Conn. 11, 138 A.2d 512 (1958).
  30. Lord Morley's Case, 6 How. St. Tr. 769, 770-771 (H. L. 1666)
  31. Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 242-43 (1875).
  32. Illinois v. Allen, 397, 90 S.Ct. 1057, 25 L.Ed.2d 353 (1970)
  33. 美國聯邦證據法第102 條 FRE 102
  34. Leroux v. State, 58 Wis.2d 671, 207 N.W.2d 589 (1973).
  35. Kentucky v. Stincer, 482 U.s. 730, 107 S.Ct. 2658, 96 L.Ed.2d 631 (1987)
  36. State v. Ditmars, 98 Idaho 472, 567 P.2d 17 (1977), certiorari denied 434 U.S. 1088, 98 S.Ct. 1284, 55 L.Ed.2d 793.
  37. 5 Geo. 3, c. 12, 57 (1765)
  38. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 131. Ed. 2d 923 (1965)
  39. Commonwealth v. Robichaud, 358 Mass. 300, 264 N.E.2d 374 (1970).
  40. 我司法院大法官釋字第五八二號解釋
  41. E.G., 13 Car. 2, c. 1. 5 (1661)
  42. John Marshall 曾於1813 年在Mima Queen and Child v. Heburn ， 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 290 (1813)
  43. U.S. v. Theriault, 531 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1976), rehearing denied 534 F.2d 1407, certiorari denied 429 U.S. 898, 50 L.Ed.2d 182, appeal after remand 555 F.2d 460 (5th Cir.), certiorari denied 435 U.S. 870, 98 S.Ct. 212, 54 L.Ed.2d 148.
  44. Khaalis v. U.S. 408 A.2d 313 (D.C.App. 1979), certiorari denied 444 U.S. 1092, 100 S.Ct. 1059, 62 L.Ed.2d 781
  45. U.S. v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522, 105 S.Ct. 1482, 84 L.Ed.2d 486 (1985).
  46. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 509 Pa. 357, 502 A.2d 148.
  47. R. Lee. Letter IV by the Federal Farmer (Oct. 15, 1787)
  48. Raleigh's Case, 2 How. St. Tr. 1 (1603).
  49. Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 1015 (1988)
  50. Lewis v. U.S., 146 U.S. 370, 13 S. Ct. 136 L.Ed. 1011 (1892)
  51. Wigmore, Evidence, Vol. 5, 1367 (3d ed., 1940)
  52. Prof. Fisherman, The Confrontation Clause Rediscovered ,http://www.courts.state.va.us/ed/updates/2004 08 confrontation clause rediscovered.pdf.
  53. Davis v. Alaska, 414 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) 415 U.S. 308. 316-18
  54. Phillips v. U.S., 401 F.Supp. 594 (D.C.Mo. 1975), affirmed 533 F.2d 369 (8th Cir.), certiorari denied 429 U.S. 924, 97S.Ct. 324, 50 L.Ed.2d 292.
  55. People v. Cortes, － N.Y.S.2d －, 2004 WL 125018 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. May 26, 2004)
  56. Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237, 242-43 (1895)
  57. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 287, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed. 2d 297 (1973)
  58. Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S.
  59. Compare White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346 (1992)
  60. Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805 (1990)
  61. Jonathan Grossman, CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON: THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE REBORN,http://www.sdap.org/downloads/research/criminal/crawford.pdf
  62. people v. Virgil, 2004 WL 1352647 (Colo. Ct. App. June 17, 2004)
  63. Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75 (1st Cir. 2004)
  64. U.S. v. Garcia, 625 F.2d 162 (7th Cir. 1980), certiorari denied 449 U.S. 923, 101 S.Ct. 325, 66 L.Ed.2d 152; U.S. v. Esquer, 459 F.2d 431 (7th Cir. 1972).
  65. Hammond v. State, 809 N.E.2d 945, 952 (Ind. App. 2004
  66. 美國聯邦憲法第6增修條款
  67. VonLusch v. State, 31 Md.App. 271, 356 A.2d 277 (1976), judgment reversed on other grounds 279 Md. 255, 368 A.2d 468.
  68. Cape v. State, 272 Ind. 609, 400. N.E.2d 161 (1980).
  69. 美國聯邦證據規則（Federal Rule of Evidence）Rule 804
  70. Tong's Case, Kel. J. 17, 18, 84 Eng. Rep. 1061, 1062 (1662) (treason)
  71. Harrell v. Israel, 672 F.2d 632 (7th Cir. 1982)
  72. 2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 284 (1736).
  73. 390 U.S. 719 (1968).
  74. Henderson v. Lane, 613 F.2d 175(7th Cir. 1980), certiorari denied 446 U.S. 986, 100 S.Ct. 2971, 64 L.Ed.2d 844.
  75. U.S. v. Treatment, 524 F.2d 320 (8th Cir. 1975).
  76. U.S. v. Bagley, 719 F.2d 1462.
  77. U.S. v. Owen, 484 U.S. 554 (1988)
  78. U.S. v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 228 (2d Cir. 2004 )
  79. Amar, Akhil Reed(1998).Confrontation Clause First Principles: A Reply to Professor Friedman.Geo. L.J.,86,1045.
  80. Douglas, D.(ed.)(1955).English Historical Documents.
  81. Friedman, Richard D.(1998).Confrontation: The Search for Basic Principles.Geo. L.J.,86,1014-22.
  82. Herrman,Speer(1994).Facing the Accuser: Ancient and Medieval Precursors of the Confrontation Clause.Va. J. Int'l L.,34,481.
  83. LaFave, Wayne R.,Israel, Jerold H.(1992).Criminal Procedure.
  84. Langbein, J.(1974).Prosecuting Crime in the Renaissance.
  85. Mauet, Thomas A.,Wolfson, Warren D..Trial Evidence.
  86. Perry, R.(ed.),Cooper, J.(ed.)(1959).Sources of Our Liberties.
  87. Pollitt(1959).The Right of Confrontation: Its History and Modern Dress.J. Pub. L.,8,381+396-397.
  88. Posner, Larry S.,Dodd, Roger J..Cross-examination: Science and Techniques.
  89. Schwartz, B.(1971).The Bill of Rights: Documentary History.
  90. Wigmore, John H.,Chadbourn, John H.(rev. ed.)(1974).Evidence in Trials at Common Law.
  91. Wroth, K.(ed.),Zobel, H.(ed.)(1965).Legal Papers of John Adams.
被引用次数
  1. 蔡孟容,金孟華(2021)。刑案現場勘察報告證據性質之探討。高大法學論叢，16(2)，135-171+173。
  2. 李永瑞(2014)。從憲法正當法律程序談刑事訴訟法之基礎原理－由美日法制初探犯罪嫌疑人之基本權保障－。國立臺中科技大學通識教育學報，3，17-38。
  3. 林鈺雄(2011)。對質詰問之限制與較佳防禦手段優先性原則之運用：以證人保護目的與視訊訊問制度為中心。臺大法學論叢，40(4)，329-401。
  4. 謝煜偉(2021)。評析司法院釋字第789號解釋：兼論供述證據信用性之判斷。臺大法學論叢，50(4)，1863-1921。
  5. 張麗卿(2008)。醫療糾紛鑑定與對質詰問權。東吳法律學報，20(2)，1-28。
  6. 張麗卿(2009)。實證醫學在醫療過失審判實務上的意義－從冑腺癌存活率談起。東吳法律學報，21(2)，1-30。
  7. 張明偉(2022)。傳聞例外規定之檢視－以公務員職務製作文書與公證文書為中心。臺北大學法學論叢，121，119-173。
  8. (2008)。鑑定報告與傳聞例外—最高法院近年相關裁判之評釋。政大法學評論，101，193-254。
  9. (2009)。病人安全─評最高法院九十三年度台上字第二七一四號刑事判決。醫事法學，16(1)，65-71。
  10. (2009)。專利侵權事件之假處分程序－以其釋明證明度為中心兼評最高法院九七年度台抗字第二五七號民事裁定。台灣法學雜誌，135，59-76。
  11. (2010)。承受訴訟違法─最高法院九十一年度台上字第五○四二號刑事判決評釋。月旦法學雜誌，184，220-248。
  12. (2012)。鑑定責任─英國Sally Clark案之省思。醫事法學，19(1)，1-19。
  13. (2022)。論證人域外陳述之證據能力。月旦法學雜誌，329，97-109。
print cancel