论非法证据排除规则和印证证明模式的冲突及弥合路径

On the Conflicts and Integrating Strategies between China's Exclusionary Rule of Illegal-obtained Evidence and Mutual Proof Mechanism

我国的非法证据排除规则没有关注法官评价证据的心证过程。英美法系国家的排除规则体现了"原子主义"的思维方式,但我国的排除规则却是将"整体主义"和"相互印证"的逻辑表达于规范和实务层面。这种"整体主义"的证据评价方式源自于对案件实体真实的追求,其本质是用"印证"思维来解决证据能力问题。这会导致实体事实影响法官准确认定非法证据,也会致使印证证明模式在一定程度上架空排除规则。此外,心理学中"以融贯性为基础"的推理和相关法律实验表明,"整体主义"会引导法官倾向于不排除非法证据。我们应当在以审判为中心的改革中逐步弥合两者冲突,其中,最低限度的改革要求在于,不能以"相互印证"来处理取证合法性的问题。

China＇s exclusionary rule of illegal--obtained evidence is not attentive to judge＇s internal evaluation of evidence. The exclusionary rule in the Anglo--American system denotes the atomism; by contrast, our exclusionary rule is expressed in the forms of holism and ＂mutual proof mechanism＂, both normally and practically. Such holism is derived from the philosophy of substantive truth. The essence is to use the ＂mutual proof＂ to assess the admissibility of evidence. This logic produces problems not only in that the actual finding of illegal--obtained evidence may be affected by substantive facts, but also in that the mutual proof mechanism may eviscerate the exclusionary rule to a large extent. In addition, the ＂co- herence- based＂ reasoning in the psychological and other relevant legal experiments indicates that holism will induce the judge not to exclude the illegal-- obtained evidence. We can reduce their conflicts in the context of current trial centralization reform. A minimum reformative requirement is： the ＂mutual proof mechanism＂ cannot be employed to determine the admissibility of evidence.