학술논문
배심제의 성공을 위한 제언 - 전문 진술의 증거능력
이용수 78
- 영문명
- A Suggestion for the Successful Jury Trial - The Admissibility of Hearsay Statement -
- 발행기관
- 한국형사정책학회
- 저자명
- 김희균(KIM Heekyoon)
- 간행물 정보
- 『형사정책』刑事政策 第19卷 第1號, 91~112쪽, 전체 22쪽
- 주제분류
- 사회과학 > 정책학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2007.06.30
5,440원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
The terms like “orality,” or “directness” have become the key-words for the Korean criminal trial. We have recently introduced a type of mixed court which is based on the idea of lay participation in a criminal process. After some ardent debate among law practitioners on which forms of trials will sufficiently guarantee the fairness of criminal procedure, the Korean Congress finally accepted the proposed amendment of the Korean Criminal Procedure Law and invited 5 to 9 jurors in the court as factfinders. Even if their decisions cannot compel the judges, who are supposed to cooperate with jurors, we are now looking forward to witnessing enormous change of our criminal court.
What we really have to do for the successful introduction of our new system is to redesign the method of examining the witness. Since the Japanese occupation of our country in the last century, we are a lot accustomed to a trial by proces-verbal which is transcribed or made by law enforcement personnel. It is, however, time to consider the validity of that sort of fact-finding procedure. First of all, we cannot repeat the trial by documents in the presence of jurors. The jury should be given a right to confront witness and to decide the case according to his oral testimony. Nonetheless some provisions of newly amended law still admits various hearsay evidence, in the form of written or oral out-of-court statement, if it shows “particular guarantee of trustworthiness” at the time of recording it. Accordingly, some sorts of hearsay statements and written documents can be used against the defendant in our jury trial.
This paper is to think about the meaning of the so-called trustworthiness requirement and the possible way of presenting the reliable evidence to prospective jurors. What I would really like to say in this paper is that, on the one hand, we have to apply a more scrutinous test for certain hearsay evidence, which is unreliable in nature, and that, on the other hand, we still need to open the door for the prior inconsistent statement by the in-court witness as substantive evidence. That is the basic idea approved by the legislative body who finally introduced the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975 despite of the fear for the Nixon government"s misconduct.
I hope that the witness who changed his version in open-court will be cross-examined by our skilled lawyers, and that, in the near future, our court will be the place where reliable evidence is presented and the truth of the fact in litigation is revealed.
What we really have to do for the successful introduction of our new system is to redesign the method of examining the witness. Since the Japanese occupation of our country in the last century, we are a lot accustomed to a trial by proces-verbal which is transcribed or made by law enforcement personnel. It is, however, time to consider the validity of that sort of fact-finding procedure. First of all, we cannot repeat the trial by documents in the presence of jurors. The jury should be given a right to confront witness and to decide the case according to his oral testimony. Nonetheless some provisions of newly amended law still admits various hearsay evidence, in the form of written or oral out-of-court statement, if it shows “particular guarantee of trustworthiness” at the time of recording it. Accordingly, some sorts of hearsay statements and written documents can be used against the defendant in our jury trial.
This paper is to think about the meaning of the so-called trustworthiness requirement and the possible way of presenting the reliable evidence to prospective jurors. What I would really like to say in this paper is that, on the one hand, we have to apply a more scrutinous test for certain hearsay evidence, which is unreliable in nature, and that, on the other hand, we still need to open the door for the prior inconsistent statement by the in-court witness as substantive evidence. That is the basic idea approved by the legislative body who finally introduced the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975 despite of the fear for the Nixon government"s misconduct.
I hope that the witness who changed his version in open-court will be cross-examined by our skilled lawyers, and that, in the near future, our court will be the place where reliable evidence is presented and the truth of the fact in litigation is revealed.
목차
Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
Ⅱ. 전문법칙과 그 예외의 이론
Ⅲ. 전문 진술의 문제
Ⅳ. 불일치 진술의 문제
Ⅴ. 전문 서류의 문제
Ⅵ. 나오는 말
ABSTRACT
Ⅱ. 전문법칙과 그 예외의 이론
Ⅲ. 전문 진술의 문제
Ⅳ. 불일치 진술의 문제
Ⅴ. 전문 서류의 문제
Ⅵ. 나오는 말
ABSTRACT
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 독일의 마약정책 - 마약법의 제정 및 개정을 중심으로
- 배심제의 성공을 위한 제언 - 전문 진술의 증거능력
- 성매매 청소년을 위한 영국정부의 개입방향 및 전략에 관한 연구
- 독일 형사소송법상의 유전자정보은행에 관한 법적 고찰 - 「유전자감식정보의 수집 및 관리에 관한 법률안」과의 비교를 중심으로
- 청소년 유해성과 관련한 행정판단과 사법판단 - 음란성에 관한 법원의 태도를 중심으로
- 성범죄자 신상공개제도의 효과성에 관한 연구 - 미국 텍사스 주의 성범죄자 등록 및 공개제도의 검증을 중심으로
- 독일의 치료중단 기준과 입법론
- 배심평결규칙의 법심리학적 제 문제(하) - 만장일치규칙과 다수결규칙
- 사이버 명예훼손행위에 대한 형법적 대책
- 제주자치경찰 현황과 치안 업무의 범위
- 청소년범죄의 사회적 비용 추정 - 5대 범죄를 중심으로
- 가족유대와 비행의 관계 - 허쉬의 사회통제이론에 대한 수정된 논의를 중심으로
- 정보통신범죄의 전망
- 행형의 목적으로서 재사회화이념에 관한 연구
- 소년법개정논의에 관한 비판적 검토
- 학회소식
- 「국민의 형사재판참여에 관한 법률」상 배심원선정절차의 내용과 검토 - 2006. 4. 12. 사개추위 모의재판의 경험을 중심으로
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!