國民法官法中的保留證據能力裁定

Abstract

國民法官法第62條第1項本文的證據能力裁定制度，要求法院原則上應於準備程序終結前裁定證據能力之有無，而同條項但書的「保留證據能力裁定」，作為例外條款，匯聚了多重目的及價值的矛盾，是人民參與審判關鍵的冰山一角，其具體應如何適用，攸關程序中整體證據法則的遂行，亦是審判實務運用證據能力概念的試金石。

於總論部分，本文首先探討「國民法官法第62條第1項但書的『保留證據能力裁定』，應如何適用？」並主張：保留證據能力裁定的適用須嚴格限縮，應遵循適用上的「一般性衡量基準」，即屬「正面效益明顯大於負面影響」的例外特殊情況，方可裁量運用。並且也應以相關程序機制，作為適用保留證據能力裁定時的配套措施，例如應交待裁量運用之情事及附具理由，並適時運用「使國民法官迴避」及「審判長之闡明」等審判程序中降低負面影響的措施。

於各論部分，本文探討「自白任意性」與「附條件關聯性」兩種證據能力爭議，是否適用保留證據能力裁定？在證據能力的判斷上是否應參考國民法官意見？

就「自白任意性」部分，本文認為，於憲法層次上，依照立法理由將自白任意性適用保留證據能力裁定，有違反憲法上「正當法律程序」的疑慮，並且也悖離了國家應負擔之憲法人身自由的「制度性保障」義務。再者，於法律層次的解釋上，以「一般性衡量基準」檢驗，自白任意性之證據能力爭議非屬「正面效益明顯大於負面影響」的例外特殊情況，故法院不得將此證據能力爭議裁量適用保留證據能力裁定，自然也就不得在自白任意性的決定上聽取並參考國民法官之意見。

就「附條件關聯性」部分，本文認為，在「一般性衡量基準」的檢驗下，將驗真等附條件關聯性之證據能力爭議，適用保留證據能力裁定，並在判斷上參考國民法官意見，讓「國民法官法庭」終局決定「關聯性前提事實存否」及「證據是否具有自然關聯性」，屬「正面效益明顯大於負面影響」的例外特殊情況，亦即，附條件關聯性為保留證據能力裁定的適用實例。

“Deferred Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence” in the Citizen Judges Act serve as an exceptional proviso to the general rule that courts must determine the admissibility of evidence before the conclusion of preliminary proceedings. This proviso encapsulates the tensions and conflicts among multiple objectives and values. The specific manner in which it should be applied is closely related to the implementation of the rules of evidence within the proceedings, and it also serves as a touchstone for the practical application of admissibility of evidence in trial practice.

In the general discussion section, this thesis first examines how the “Deferred Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence” should be applied. It claims that the application of the “Deferred Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence” should be strictly limited and follow the “General Test”, meaning it should only be applied in exceptional cases when the positive benefits substantially outweigh the negative effects. Additionally, relevant procedural mechanisms should be used as supporting measures for the application of the “Deferred Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence”. For example, the exercise of judicial discretion should be explained and reasons should be attached. Moreover, measures to reduce negative effects in trial proceedings such as “recusal of citizen judges” and “clarifications by the presiding judge” should be applied appropriately.

In the specific discussion section, this thesis examines the dispute over whether “voluntariness of confession” and “conditional relevance” are applicable to the “Deferred Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence”, and whether the opinions of citizen judges should be taken into consideration when determining these admissibility disputes.

In the discussion of “voluntariness of confession”, this thesis claims that applying “Deferred Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence” to “voluntariness of confession” may violate “due process of law” and deviates from the country's obligation to the “Institutional Guarantee” of personal liberty at the constitutional level. Furthermore, under the “General Test”, the dispute over admissibility of evidence concerning “voluntariness of confession” is not an exceptional case in which the positive benefits substantially outweigh the negative effects at the level of legal interpretation. Therefore, the court may not apply the “Deferred Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence” to this dispute, nor may it take opinions of citizen judges into consideration when determining “voluntariness of confession”.

In the discussion of “conditional relevance”, this thesis claims that, under the “General Test”, applying the “Deferred Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence” to disputes over conditional relevance such as authentication and taking the opinions of citizen judges into consideration when making the determination is an exceptional case in which the positive benefits substantially outweigh the negative effects, that is, “conditional relevance” is an applicable instance of the “Deferred Rulings on Admissibility of Evidence”.