國民參與刑事審判程序的證據能力判斷：兼論鑑定證據之證據能力判斷標準

Admissibility of Evidence in the Lay Participation System of Criminal Courts: With an Attention to Scientific Evidence

10.6199/NTULJ.202112_50(4).0005

蘇凱平(Kai-Ping Su)

關聯性 ； 國民法官 ； 科學證據 ； 道伯 ； 弗萊 ； Relevancy ； Lay Judge ； Scientific Evidence ； Daubert ； Frye

臺大法學論叢

50卷4期（2021 / 12 / 01）

1923 - 1989

繁體中文

刑事訴訟法並未規定「證據能力」概念之一般性要件，歷來法院實務因此甚少審酌，以致未能落實此一概念過濾證據資料的功能。惟因刑事訴訟法採取卷證併送、容許法院不先行判斷證據能力、信賴職業法官心證不受影響等制度，掩蓋了證據能力概念未能落實的問題。然而依據「國民法官法」，法院必須在準備程序中裁定證據資料有無證據能力。若仍依循既有實務的操作，讓大量的證據資料湧向國民法官法庭，將顯出審理爭點混淆、難以形成心證、審判冗長遲滯等嚴重後果，導致國民參審制度的崩潰。而在各種證據類型中，又以涉及法律以外專業知識的鑑定證據，法院最難判斷證據能力。 本文結合我國憲法解釋和美國法制，探索「自然關聯性」作為證據能力要件之內涵，並釐清亦有篩選證據功能的調查必要性概念，提出明確的操作標準。就鑑定證據之證據能力，本文考察美國法制的「弗萊法則」與「道伯法則」指出：弗萊法則追求的價值，正與我國司法改革和國民參審制度之目標──增進判決一致性、正確性、避免審判冗長──相適合；道伯法則雖有其優點，但運作所必要的配套措施在我國卻不存在。因此本文主張我國可參考弗萊法則的「普遍接受」標準，建立科學證據之證據能力判準。

This article discusses admissibility of evidence in Taiwan's lay participation system of criminal trials, which will be implemented in 2023. Admissibility means that proffered evidence may be submitted to finders of fact and be evaluated for its probative value. Professional judges serve as a filter to screen out unqualified evidential materials. According to Taiwan's Constitutional Court decision, the necessary element for admissibility in criminal trial is ＂natural relevancy＂. Since this concept does not appear in statutes, nor does the Court provide its definition, ＂natural relevancy＂ is open to interpretation. So, the filter mechanism for admissibility does not function effectively and consistently in existing trials. Nevertheless, it does not seem to be a serious problem, because current criminal trials are dominated by professional judges, who take charge of everything: admissibility, probative value of evidence, and final decisions of cases. Nevertheless, the lack of a filter for unqualified evidence will be a nightmare in the lay participation system. Inadmissible evidence is not allowed to be submitted to lay judges, in case it will bias their decisions, and substantially delay the trial. Hence, professional judges will be expected to insulate lay judges from inadmissible evidence, by excluding evidence in the preliminary hearing stage. However, professional judges do not have a useful tool for excluding inadmissible evidence, because there has been no clear definition of admissibility and little discussion about this issue. After reviewing academic literature and court decisions in Taiwan and the United States, this article holds that natural relevancy should be interpreted as the minimum probative value that an evidential material has on the fact which is of consequence for determination of a case. This is the standard adopted in the Federal Rules of Evidence of the U.S., and I argue for its adoption in Taiwan as well. In addition to the general definition of natural relevancy and admissibility, this article particularly focuses on how these concepts should apply to scientific evidence. Neither legal knowledge, common sense nor experience can help professional judges decide whether scientific evidence is scientifically proved, and should be factored into court decisions. That is, some additional criteria have to be defined for the evaluation of scientific evidence, to help professional judges fulfill their tasks. This article contends that the debate concerning the ＂Frye test＂ and the ＂Daubert test＂, in the U.S., may provide a useful reference for Taiwan's courts.

1. 蘇凱平(2020)。重新探索自由心證：以憲法與刑事訴訟法的價值衝突與解決為核心。臺灣大學法學論叢，49(1)，339-401。
   連結：
2. Berger, M. A.(2003).Expert Testimony in Criminal Proceedings: Questions Daubert Does Not Answer.Seton Hall Law Review,33,1125-1140.
3. Bernstein, D. E.,Jackson, J. D.(2004).The Daubert Trilogy in the States.Jurimetrics,44(3),351-366.
4. Best, A.(2018).Examples & Explanations for Evidence.Wolters Kluwer.
5. Broun, K. S.,Dix, G. E.,Imwinkelried, E. J.,Kaye, D. H.,Mosteller, R. P.,Roberts, E. F.,Swift, E.(2014).McCormick on Evidence.West Group.
6. Cheng, E. K.,Yoon, A. H.(2005).Does Frye or Daubert Matter? A Study of Scientific Admissibility Standards.Virginia Law Review,91(2),471-513.
7. Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community National Research Council(2009).Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward.The National Academies Press.
8. Edmond, G.,Cunliffe, E.,Hamer, D.(2020).Fingerprint Comparison and Adversarialism: The Scientific and Historical Evidence.Modern Law Review,83(6),1287-1327.
9. Faigman, D. L.(2008).Admissibility Regimes: The "Opinion Rule" and Other Oddities and Exceptions to Scientific Evidence, the Scientific Revolution, and Common Sense.Southwestern University Law Review,36,699-722.
10. Gatowski, S.,Dobbin, S. A.,Richardson, J. T.,Ginsburg, G. P.,Merlino, M. L.,Dahir, V.(2001).Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert World.Law and Human Behavior,25(5),433-458.
11. Giannelli, P. C.(1993)."Junk Science": The Criminal Cases.Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology,84(1),105-128.
12. Goodman-Delahunty, J.,Wakabayashi, K.(2012).Adversarial Forensic Science Experts: An Empirical Study of Jury Deliberation.Current Issues in Criminal Justice,24(1),85-103.
13. Graziadei, M.(2003).The Functional Heritage.Comparative Legal Studies: Traditions and Transitions
14. Imwinkelried, E. J.(1995).Evidence Law Visits Jurassic Park: The Far-Reaching Implication of the Daubert Court's Recognition of the Uncertainty of the Scientific Enterprise.Iowa Law Review,81,55-78.
15. Landsman, S.,Rakos, R. F.(1994).A Preliminary Inquiry into the Effect of Potentially Biasing Information on Judges and Jurors in Civil Litigation.Behavioral Sciences & the Law,12,113-126.
16. Langleben, D. D.,Moriarty, J. C.(2013).Using Brain Imaging for Lie Detection: Where Science, Law and Research Policy Collide.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,19(2),222-234.
17. Lynch, M.(2003).God's Signature: DNA Profiling, The New Gold Standard in Forensic Science.Endeavour,27(2),93-97.
18. Mueller, C. B.,Kirkpatrick, L. C.,Richter, L. L.(2018).Evidence.Wolters Kluwer.
19. Murphy, E.(2007).The New Forensics: Criminal Justice, False Certainty, and the Second Generation of Scientific Evidence.California Law Review,95(3),721-797.
20. National Research Council(2006).Discussion of the Committee on Daubert Standards: Summary of Meetings.The National Academies Press.
21. Park, R. C.,Leonard, D. P.,Orenstein, A.,Nance, D. A.,Goldberg, S. H.(2018).Evidence Law: A Student's Guide to the Law of Evidence as Applied in American Trials.West Academic Publishing.
22. Polizzi, K. N.(2017).How Long Do We Keep Fryeing: The Future of Expert Scientific Evidence in California.Chapman Law Review,20(2),393-420.
23. Regensburger, D.(2019).Criminal Evidence: From Crime Scene to Courtroom.Wolters Kluwer.
24. Reimann, M.(2003).The Progress and Failure of Comparative Law in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century.The American Journal of Comparative Law,50(4),671-700.
25. Reimann, M.(Ed.),Zimmermann, R.(Ed.)(2012).The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law.Oxford Handbooks Online.
26. Reitz, J.(1998).How to do Comparative Law.The American Journal of Comparative Law,46(4),617-636.
27. Ryan, M. J.(2020).Escaping The Fingerprint Crisis: Blueprint for Essential Research.University of Illinois Law Review,2020(3),763-810.
28. Seaman, J. A.(2013).A Tale of Two Dauberts.Georgia Law Review,47(3),889-922.
29. Sklansky, D. A.(2016).Evidence: Cases, Commentary, and Problems.Wolters Kluwer.
30. Vidmar, N.(2005).Expert Evidence, The Adversary System, and The Jury.American Journal of Public Health,95(Supplememt 1),137-143.
31. Weiss, K. J.,Watson, C.,Xuan, Y.(2014).Frye's Backstory: A Tale of Murder, a Retracted Confession, and Scientific Hubris.Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,42(2),226-233.
32. Wistrich, A. J.,Guthrie, C.,Rachlinski, J. J.(2005).Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding.University of Pennsylvania Law Review,153(4),1251-1345.
33. 王正嘉(2020).審議式法庭：人民參與刑事審判.國立臺灣大學出版中心.
34. 王兆鵬(2007).美國刑事訴訟法.元照.
35. 王兆鵬,張明偉,李榮耕(2020).刑事訴訟法（上）.新學林.
36. 王兆鵬,張明偉,李榮耕(2020).刑事訴訟法（下）.新學林.
37. 朱石炎(2018).刑事訴訟法論.三民.
38. 吳冠霆(2006)。論刑事證據之關連性。法令月刊，57(7)，21-34。
39. 吳燦(2020)。刑事證據能力判斷的案例研討：臺灣米蘭達法則與證據排除主張逾期之法效。月旦法學雜誌，301，6-29。
40. 李榮耕(2012)。初探證據關聯性之要求。甘添貴教授七秩華誕祝壽論文集下冊
41. 李學燈(1992).證據法比較研究.五南.
42. 林永謀(2010).刑事訴訟法釋論（中冊）.自刊.
43. 林俊益(2017).刑事訴訟法概論（上）.新學林.
44. 林鈺雄(2020).刑事訴訟法（上冊）.新學林.
45. 花滿堂(2018).刑事訴訟法爭議問題研究.新學林.
46. 邱鼎文(2020).刑事證據開示之考察：比較法、理論與應用.元照.
47. 金孟華(2018)。證據相互影響論：以刑事證據法為中心。中研院法學期刊，23，171-218。
48. 金孟華,陳又寧(2015)。論圖案與印記證據之證據能力。中研院法學期刊，17，423-476。
49. 施志鴻,金榮泰,鄧皓允(2019)。腦指紋技術運用於犯罪偵查之研究。警學叢刊，49(6)，29-51。
50. 張永宏(2015)。論刑事準備程序之運作（上）：以人民參與審判為核心。月旦裁判時報，41，89-100。
51. 陳祐治(2008)。刑事訴訟與證據法系列之一：現行刑事證據規定亟待檢討。法令月刊，59(2)，57-83。
52. 陳運財(2017)。如何建構人民信賴的司法體系：追求權責相符的刑事審判制度。檢察新論，21，3-12。
53. 彭莉娟(2009)。當指紋遇到道伯特法則：美國拜倫米切爾案例介紹。刑事科學，66，17-26。
54. 曾春僑(2020)。指紋鑑定方法與實務。在野法潮，45，80-85。
55. 黃東熊(2017).刑訴法研究（第三冊）.元照.
56. 黃朝義(2017).刑事訴訟法.新學林.

1. 蘇凱平(2023)。2022年刑事程序法發展回顧：國民法官法與刑事訴訟法的銜接與背離－以模擬審判為觀察點。臺大法學論叢，52(S)，1327-1353。
2. 顏榕(2023)。論被告偵訊中錄影錄音證據之容許性：以日本裁判員裁判之今市事件判決為素材。東吳法律學報，35(2)，67-108。
3. (2024)。論國民法官法下刺激證據之調查必要性－以攝影證據為核心。軍法專刊，70(3)，138-168。