刑事诉讼中律师调查取证权研究
|
摘要
刑事诉讼中律师调查取证权是指律师接受刑事案件当事人的委托，采取会见、阅卷、调查等方法，发现和取得与案件有关的各种证据材料，证明犯罪嫌疑人、被告人无罪、罪轻、或者减轻、免除刑事责任，维护其合法权益。
律师的调查取证权在性质上是举证责任，控诉方的调查取证权性质上是证明责任。律师调查取证权与控方调查取证权的区别是：证明标准不同；法律后果不同；基点不同；调查取证的内容不同；调查取证的手段不同。
赋予并确保律师调查权具有以下几个方面的价值：有助于查清案情，实现实体公正；平衡国家追诉权，实现程序公正；提高诉讼效率，保障高度技术化、专门化的刑事诉讼程序的顺利进行；从立法上明文规定辩护律师维护犯罪嫌疑人、被告人合法权益的具体制度，可以从观念上强化保护犯罪嫌疑人、被告人合法权益的思想意识。
律师调查取证权源于古罗马时代。欧洲封建社会末期，在“天赋人权”“主权在民”等进步思想指引下，资产阶级在同宗教特权和封建专制的斗争中，吸收了古罗马的诉讼代理和辩护制的可取部分，发展了刑事诉讼中的律师辩护制度，赋予辩护律师以调查取证权。这一先进的诉讼文明成果被世界上一切文明国家和联合国所确认。
我国现行刑事诉讼法对律师调查取证权作了明确的规定。现行立法关于律师调查取证权的规定不足之处在于：1、侦查阶段的律师不具有辩护人资格，无调查取证权，使得辨方的辩护工作，一开始就处于劣势。2、现行立法自相矛盾，控、辩双方权利不对等。3、辩护律师的调查取证工作完全受
制于被调查人和控方，律师的调查取证制度名存实亡、形同
虚设。4、律师申请行使调查取证权无司法救济。5、律师的
阅卷权受到不当侵害，律师的取证途径越来越窄。6、律师不
享有职务行为的司法豁免权，律师辩护无法律保障。
现行刑事诉讼法中不平衡、无救济、简单化的律师调查取
证的规定已难以适应当前控辨式庭审改革发展的需要。笔者
对未来的刑事证据立法中律师调查取证权作如下建议:
1、律师调查取证权的内容。包括无罪辩护、从轻、减轻、
免除刑罚辩护的调查取证内容。
2、行使律师调查取证权的手段。
(l)会见权。关于“批准会见权”问题，现行法律、法规、
司法解释，都对“涉及国家秘密的案件”作了明确解释。但
在实践中，有些侦查人员对此还作扩大解释，侵犯了犯罪嫌
疑人、被告人的律师帮助权。为此，未来证据立法必须对此
再次予以明确规定，并对违反者给与处罚。关于“会见在场
权”问题。我国关于律师会见权的法律规定距离国际囚犯待
遇最低限度标准还有很大的距离，我们必须以相关的联合国
文件为标准，争取早日达到国际最低标准。应当允许单个律
师会见犯罪嫌疑人、被告人。允许律师会见时录音、录相、
拍照。
(2)阅卷权。现行立法对律师阅卷的范围规定不明。为
了避免理解分歧，笔者建议未来证据立法明确规定“辩护律
师自人民检察院对案件审查起诉之日起，有权查阅全部案卷，
摘抄、复制、复印为进行有力辩护所需要的材料。”
(3)调查权。对涉及可能说明犯罪嫌疑人、被告人无罪、
罪轻线索的证据和材料，在侦查、审查起诉中，公安、检察
人员遗漏或摒弃的，律师应当亲自调查访问。对于案件中涉
及的专门性问题，法律应规定律师在诉讼全过程都有权向技
2
术专家申请提供意见、检验、鉴定。律师在诉讼过程中，一
旦发现对于某个方面的证据必须进行庭前调查，而这种调查
又得不到被调查人的积极配合，律师就可以向案件的主审法
官提出申请，请示签发“调查令”，获得强制调查权。
3、保障律师调查取证权的措施。
(l)建立刑事证据展示制度，内容包括辩护人阅卷的范
围、地点和时间;辨方展示证据的限制性保护;违反证据展
示义务的处理。
(2)完善司法鉴定制度。司法鉴定的启动权应赋予法院，
控辩双方经“审查法官”批准后，才能进行鉴定。对鉴定人
未出庭和未经质证的鉴定书法庭不予采信，建立鉴定人出庭
作证的经济补偿制度;规定鉴定人出庭作证的例外。
(3)完善律师调查取证权的司法救济制度。从世界范围
来看，使律师能够运用公权力来获取证据，已成为刑事诉讼
发展的一大趋势。为了强化辩护律师的调查取证权，未来立
法应取消对律师调查取证方面的不必要限制，立法重心应当
放在完善律师申请证据保全的权利，以此作为实现辩护律师
调查取证的主要形式。
(4)辩护律师享有司法豁免权制度。未来立法应规定辩
护律师享有庭审辩护言论的豁免权;取消《刑事诉讼法》第
38条、《刑法》第306条关于律师妨害作证法律责任的规定;
加强律师执业的内部自律。
二00三年二月十日
The right of evidential investigation of lawyers in criminal proceedings means the lawyers can meet the suspects or the accused, read the files, and investigate evidence to discover and acquire all kinds of relative evidential materials to prove that the suspects or accused are innocent or only commit lighter crimes, or the criminal liabilities upon them shall be abated or exempted, thus, the legal interests of the suspects and accused are protected.
The right of evidential investigation of lawyers is a burden of producing evidence while it is a burden of adducing evidence for the prosecution party to prove guilty. Here are the differences: the different standards of proof, different legal results, different basis, different contents and methods for evidential investigation.
The values for ensuring the evidential investigation right of lawyers are as follows: a. to clarify the case to realize the substantive justice, b. to balance the right to prosecute of the state to realize the procedural justice, c. to make the action more effective to guarantee the highly skillful and specialized criminal proceedings be smoothly carried out, e. to expressly and legislatively regulate the concrete system for lawyers to protect the legal interests of the suspects and accused and to highlight the concept on the protection of their legal interests.
The lawyers' right of evidential investigation originated from the ancient Roman Times. At the end of European feudal society, the capitalist rulers absorbed some reasonable factors from the systems of law agent and defense to develop the lawyer defense system in criminal proceedings to confer the right of evidential investigation on lawyers. Nowadays, all civilized countries as well as the United Nation has established the advanced litigation civilization.
Although the China's current criminal procedure law regulates clearly on the lawyers' right of evidential investigation, there are some shortcomings as follows:
1. In the beginning of the criminal investigation, the lawyers don't have the
qualification to defend the suspects or accused and to investigate the evidence, so that the defense party will be put at a disadvantageous position;
2. The current laws are self contradicted and the rights of the defense party are unequal to that of the prosecution party;
3. The lawyers' right of evidence investigation are totally controlled by the investigative target and the prosecution party, so that the system of lawyer investigation is ineffective;
4. There is no judicial remedy for lawyers when their application of the investigation rights are denied;
5. The lawyers' right to read the files are improperly infringed and the methods to acquire the evidence are less and less; and
6. The lawyers don't have the right of job-related immunity, so that their rights of defense cannot be legally protected.
The regulations about the lawyer's right to investigate and obtain the evidence in the current Criminal Procedure Law are so unbalanced and simple that the lawyers have no ways to ask for relief. Such regulations can not adapt to the development of the current reform of accusatory and adversary procedure. Therefore, the writer wants to give some suggestions on the lawyer's right to investigate and obtain the evidence in the future legislation of criminal evidence law. The suggestions are as follows:
1.The content of the lawyer's right to investigate and obtain the evidence. It includes innocent defense, lesser punishment defense, mitigate punishment defense and exemption from punishment defense.
2.The lawyer's methods to investigate and obtain the evidence.
Firstly, the writer talks about the right of meeting with the client. As far as the ratification of the right of meeting with the client is concerned, the current law, regulation and judicial explanation have already clearly explained "the case that is involved with state secrecy". But some inquiring officers have expanded the explanation in the practice, which infringes the aiding rights of the suspect and de
律师的调查取证权在性质上是举证责任，控诉方的调查取证权性质上是证明责任。律师调查取证权与控方调查取证权的区别是：证明标准不同；法律后果不同；基点不同；调查取证的内容不同；调查取证的手段不同。
赋予并确保律师调查权具有以下几个方面的价值：有助于查清案情，实现实体公正；平衡国家追诉权，实现程序公正；提高诉讼效率，保障高度技术化、专门化的刑事诉讼程序的顺利进行；从立法上明文规定辩护律师维护犯罪嫌疑人、被告人合法权益的具体制度，可以从观念上强化保护犯罪嫌疑人、被告人合法权益的思想意识。
律师调查取证权源于古罗马时代。欧洲封建社会末期，在“天赋人权”“主权在民”等进步思想指引下，资产阶级在同宗教特权和封建专制的斗争中，吸收了古罗马的诉讼代理和辩护制的可取部分，发展了刑事诉讼中的律师辩护制度，赋予辩护律师以调查取证权。这一先进的诉讼文明成果被世界上一切文明国家和联合国所确认。
我国现行刑事诉讼法对律师调查取证权作了明确的规定。现行立法关于律师调查取证权的规定不足之处在于：1、侦查阶段的律师不具有辩护人资格，无调查取证权，使得辨方的辩护工作，一开始就处于劣势。2、现行立法自相矛盾，控、辩双方权利不对等。3、辩护律师的调查取证工作完全受
制于被调查人和控方，律师的调查取证制度名存实亡、形同
虚设。4、律师申请行使调查取证权无司法救济。5、律师的
阅卷权受到不当侵害，律师的取证途径越来越窄。6、律师不
享有职务行为的司法豁免权，律师辩护无法律保障。
现行刑事诉讼法中不平衡、无救济、简单化的律师调查取
证的规定已难以适应当前控辨式庭审改革发展的需要。笔者
对未来的刑事证据立法中律师调查取证权作如下建议:
1、律师调查取证权的内容。包括无罪辩护、从轻、减轻、
免除刑罚辩护的调查取证内容。
2、行使律师调查取证权的手段。
(l)会见权。关于“批准会见权”问题，现行法律、法规、
司法解释，都对“涉及国家秘密的案件”作了明确解释。但
在实践中，有些侦查人员对此还作扩大解释，侵犯了犯罪嫌
疑人、被告人的律师帮助权。为此，未来证据立法必须对此
再次予以明确规定，并对违反者给与处罚。关于“会见在场
权”问题。我国关于律师会见权的法律规定距离国际囚犯待
遇最低限度标准还有很大的距离，我们必须以相关的联合国
文件为标准，争取早日达到国际最低标准。应当允许单个律
师会见犯罪嫌疑人、被告人。允许律师会见时录音、录相、
拍照。
(2)阅卷权。现行立法对律师阅卷的范围规定不明。为
了避免理解分歧，笔者建议未来证据立法明确规定“辩护律
师自人民检察院对案件审查起诉之日起，有权查阅全部案卷，
摘抄、复制、复印为进行有力辩护所需要的材料。”
(3)调查权。对涉及可能说明犯罪嫌疑人、被告人无罪、
罪轻线索的证据和材料，在侦查、审查起诉中，公安、检察
人员遗漏或摒弃的，律师应当亲自调查访问。对于案件中涉
及的专门性问题，法律应规定律师在诉讼全过程都有权向技
2
术专家申请提供意见、检验、鉴定。律师在诉讼过程中，一
旦发现对于某个方面的证据必须进行庭前调查，而这种调查
又得不到被调查人的积极配合，律师就可以向案件的主审法
官提出申请，请示签发“调查令”，获得强制调查权。
3、保障律师调查取证权的措施。
(l)建立刑事证据展示制度，内容包括辩护人阅卷的范
围、地点和时间;辨方展示证据的限制性保护;违反证据展
示义务的处理。
(2)完善司法鉴定制度。司法鉴定的启动权应赋予法院，
控辩双方经“审查法官”批准后，才能进行鉴定。对鉴定人
未出庭和未经质证的鉴定书法庭不予采信，建立鉴定人出庭
作证的经济补偿制度;规定鉴定人出庭作证的例外。
(3)完善律师调查取证权的司法救济制度。从世界范围
来看，使律师能够运用公权力来获取证据，已成为刑事诉讼
发展的一大趋势。为了强化辩护律师的调查取证权，未来立
法应取消对律师调查取证方面的不必要限制，立法重心应当
放在完善律师申请证据保全的权利，以此作为实现辩护律师
调查取证的主要形式。
(4)辩护律师享有司法豁免权制度。未来立法应规定辩
护律师享有庭审辩护言论的豁免权;取消《刑事诉讼法》第
38条、《刑法》第306条关于律师妨害作证法律责任的规定;
加强律师执业的内部自律。
二00三年二月十日
The right of evidential investigation of lawyers in criminal proceedings means the lawyers can meet the suspects or the accused, read the files, and investigate evidence to discover and acquire all kinds of relative evidential materials to prove that the suspects or accused are innocent or only commit lighter crimes, or the criminal liabilities upon them shall be abated or exempted, thus, the legal interests of the suspects and accused are protected.
The right of evidential investigation of lawyers is a burden of producing evidence while it is a burden of adducing evidence for the prosecution party to prove guilty. Here are the differences: the different standards of proof, different legal results, different basis, different contents and methods for evidential investigation.
The values for ensuring the evidential investigation right of lawyers are as follows: a. to clarify the case to realize the substantive justice, b. to balance the right to prosecute of the state to realize the procedural justice, c. to make the action more effective to guarantee the highly skillful and specialized criminal proceedings be smoothly carried out, e. to expressly and legislatively regulate the concrete system for lawyers to protect the legal interests of the suspects and accused and to highlight the concept on the protection of their legal interests.
The lawyers' right of evidential investigation originated from the ancient Roman Times. At the end of European feudal society, the capitalist rulers absorbed some reasonable factors from the systems of law agent and defense to develop the lawyer defense system in criminal proceedings to confer the right of evidential investigation on lawyers. Nowadays, all civilized countries as well as the United Nation has established the advanced litigation civilization.
Although the China's current criminal procedure law regulates clearly on the lawyers' right of evidential investigation, there are some shortcomings as follows:
1. In the beginning of the criminal investigation, the lawyers don't have the
qualification to defend the suspects or accused and to investigate the evidence, so that the defense party will be put at a disadvantageous position;
2. The current laws are self contradicted and the rights of the defense party are unequal to that of the prosecution party;
3. The lawyers' right of evidence investigation are totally controlled by the investigative target and the prosecution party, so that the system of lawyer investigation is ineffective;
4. There is no judicial remedy for lawyers when their application of the investigation rights are denied;
5. The lawyers' right to read the files are improperly infringed and the methods to acquire the evidence are less and less; and
6. The lawyers don't have the right of job-related immunity, so that their rights of defense cannot be legally protected.
The regulations about the lawyer's right to investigate and obtain the evidence in the current Criminal Procedure Law are so unbalanced and simple that the lawyers have no ways to ask for relief. Such regulations can not adapt to the development of the current reform of accusatory and adversary procedure. Therefore, the writer wants to give some suggestions on the lawyer's right to investigate and obtain the evidence in the future legislation of criminal evidence law. The suggestions are as follows:
1.The content of the lawyer's right to investigate and obtain the evidence. It includes innocent defense, lesser punishment defense, mitigate punishment defense and exemption from punishment defense.
2.The lawyer's methods to investigate and obtain the evidence.
Firstly, the writer talks about the right of meeting with the client. As far as the ratification of the right of meeting with the client is concerned, the current law, regulation and judicial explanation have already clearly explained "the case that is involved with state secrecy". But some inquiring officers have expanded the explanation in the practice, which infringes the aiding rights of the suspect and de
引文
1、周国均，《律师制度理论与实物技巧》，中国人民公安大学出版社，2003年版。
2、李心鉴，《刑事诉讼构造论》，中国人民政法大学出版社。
3、铃木茂嗣，《刑事诉讼法》，青林书院。
4、刑克波、周伟，《律师在侦查阶段的维权作用——人权约法与我国法律的视角》，《政治与法律》，2002年第4期。
5、陈瑞华，《刑事诉讼的前沿问题》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年版。
6、宋英辉、吴宗耀，《刑事审判前程序研究》，中国政法大学出版社，2002版。
7、(美)Alan.M.Dershowitz, 《最好的辩护》，法律出版社，1994年版。
8、左卫民，《刑事程序问题研究》，中国政法大学出版社，99年版。
9、《诉讼法论丛》第2卷、第3卷，法律出版社，99年版。
10、尤利乌斯·格拉查，《现代证明责任问题》，法律出版社，99年版。
11、《中国大百科全书》法学卷，中国大百科全书出版社，86年版。
12、贝卡利亚，黄峰译，《论犯罪与刑罚》，中国大百科全书出版社，93年版。
13、(英)赛西尔·特纳：《肯尼刑法原理》，华夏出版社，89年版。
14、汪海燕、胡常龙，《刑事证据基本问题研究》，法律出版社，第139页。
15、(英)卡尔·波普尔，《通过知识获得解决》，中国美术学院出版社，96年版。
16、《陈光中文集》，法律出版社，99年版。
17、《证据法论坛》第1卷、第2卷、第3卷、第4卷，中国检查出版社。
2、李心鉴，《刑事诉讼构造论》，中国人民政法大学出版社。
3、铃木茂嗣，《刑事诉讼法》，青林书院。
4、刑克波、周伟，《律师在侦查阶段的维权作用——人权约法与我国法律的视角》，《政治与法律》，2002年第4期。
5、陈瑞华，《刑事诉讼的前沿问题》，中国人民大学出版社，2000年版。
6、宋英辉、吴宗耀，《刑事审判前程序研究》，中国政法大学出版社，2002版。
7、(美)Alan.M.Dershowitz, 《最好的辩护》，法律出版社，1994年版。
8、左卫民，《刑事程序问题研究》，中国政法大学出版社，99年版。
9、《诉讼法论丛》第2卷、第3卷，法律出版社，99年版。
10、尤利乌斯·格拉查，《现代证明责任问题》，法律出版社，99年版。
11、《中国大百科全书》法学卷，中国大百科全书出版社，86年版。
12、贝卡利亚，黄峰译，《论犯罪与刑罚》，中国大百科全书出版社，93年版。
13、(英)赛西尔·特纳：《肯尼刑法原理》，华夏出版社，89年版。
14、汪海燕、胡常龙，《刑事证据基本问题研究》，法律出版社，第139页。
15、(英)卡尔·波普尔，《通过知识获得解决》，中国美术学院出版社，96年版。
16、《陈光中文集》，法律出版社，99年版。
17、《证据法论坛》第1卷、第2卷、第3卷、第4卷，中国检查出版社。