比较法视野中的印证证明

Corroboration from the Perspective of Comparative Law

英美法因特定制度背景,长期存在单一证据定案法则,但证据印证即证据契合,仍为定案的基本要求。补强证据法则体现这一要求,而“一致性”审查,归纳逻辑以及图示法、概要法等证据构造分析方法的运用亦如此。证据间的“一致性”,系陪审团心证成立最重要的因素。大陆法系并无单一证据定案传统,其现代刑事诉讼也更为青睐整体性证据判断模式。法定证据制度如剔除其机械、僵化的非理性因素,其客观主义倾向及证据契合要求,与印证证明模式有相通之处。大陆法系的自由心证制度虽摒弃机械印证,但因其与实质真实主义、判决理据释明以及趋向于整体主义的证据分析方法的联系,因此仍重证据契合。但整体主义与叙事法联系,则非印证分析思路,而原子主义与图示法、概要法的联系及归纳逻辑的运用,反而突出了证据契合与融贯分析的作用。荷兰法中“孤证不能定罪”的原则及其实践中的灵活性、德国法对证言矛盾的处理、欧洲人权法院对证言补强规则的适用等,均有研究和借鉴价值。比较研究确认了印证方法的普适性,但应注意类型化区分与精细化适用,包括学习运用证据分析的技术方法,注意诉讼条件对印证方法的制约,研究单一证据定案的条件与方法等。

Under common law system,corroboration(the agreement between different evidence)is still a basic requirement in deciding a case,despite the long-held practice of deciding a case with single evidence.Such requirement is embodied in the rules governing corroborating evidence,in the examination of the consistency of evidence,as well as in the use of techniques in analyzing evidence such as the use of induction,graphs,and summary.In fact the consistency between different evidence is most important for a jury to reach the inner conviction.Under the continental law system,with no tradition of deciding a case with single evidence,its modern criminal justice prefers an integral evaluation of evidence.Its legal evidence system in the past,if rid of its rigid and irrational parts,was in fact quite similar to the corroboration theory in its tendency toward objectivism and its requirement of agreement between evidence.Its modern free evaluation of evidence,having discarded the rigid parts of legal evidence system,and pursued instead substantial truth,judgment reasoning,integral analysis of evidence,also agrees with the corroboration theory.Among the techniques used for evidence evaluation,though the holism associated with narrative method is not in line with the logic of corroboration,the atomism associated with graphic method and summary and the use of induction all highlight the significance of the agreement between evidence and of integral analysis.Some practices from continental countries are worth learning,e.g.,the rule of"no conviction with solitary evidence"in Netherlands law,the handling of contradictory testimonies in Germany,and the application of the corroborative evidence rule in European Court of Human Rights.As the comparative study has proven,the corroboration theory is universal.But in practice,attention needs to be paid to categorical differentiation,precise application of the theory,proper use of techniques in evidence analysis.In addition,it needs to be noted that the techniques used in corroboration may be conditioned by judicial proceedings,and that the conditions and methods needs to be studied for deciding a case with single evidence.