| dc.contributor | 法律系 | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 何賴傑 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Her, Lai-Jier | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2009.10 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 30-Sep-2014 17:49:28 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.available | 30-Sep-2014 17:49:28 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 30-Sep-2014 17:49:28 (UTC+8) | - |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/70236 | - |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 本文以德國刑事訴訟法第一四一條第三項關於偵查中必要辯護規定及德國聯邦最高法院判決見解，兼及德國學界對此所提之修法意見及歐洲人權公約第六條第三項c規定，作為討論我國新修刑事訴訟法第三十一條第五項規定之素材。如同德國聯邦最高法院一則開創性判決（BGHSt 46, 93）所認，偵查法官偵訊對被告不利之主要證人時，被告被排除在外（不讓其在場），此時為彌補被告不在場，其質問權受侵害之不利益，檢察官有義務向偵查法官聲請指定義務辯護人，藉由義務辯護人在場而為被告利益質問該證人。本案因檢察官未提出如此聲請，因而最高法院判定該偵查程序違法，而其違法效果係該證言證明力必須從嚴認定，即必須有特別嚴格的證據要求及判決理由（證據評價解決法）。不過，學說大多數反對將此列為證據評價問題，而要求應有證據禁止法律效果。雖然我國偵查期間之強制辯護規定，只有一項規定（第三十一條第五項），與德國規定之規範密度不能相比。立法論上，應將審判程序之強制辯護規定準用到偵查程序，且聲請羈押之案件，即有強制辯護之保護。解釋論上，本規定應從司法警察（官）詢問智能障礙被告時，即開始適用。國家偵查機關詢問或訊問智能障礙之被告，如發現被告符合本規定要件時，即應由檢察官指定辯護，此時應暫停偵訊。而該等待時間，不應計入二十四小時內，且應類推適用第九十三條之一第一項第五款規定。而為落實立法者對智能障礙被告之保護意旨，違反本規定所取得被告自由或不利陳述，應有證據禁止法律效果。 | en_US |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | This article aims to address the legal study of compulsory defense in the Criminal Procedural Act of Germany and in the European Con-vention on Human Rights, and also the rules of the Criminal Procedural Act of Taiwan. With respect to the opinion of the Federal Supreme Court of Germany (BGHSt 46, 93), the interrogation of witnesses with-out cross examination by the Investigative Judge is against the law, if the accused, without representation by an attorney, was interrogated and the prosecutor had not previously applied for an appointment of an at-torney by the Investigative Judge in the case of compulsory defense. The outcome of violating the law is that the witness’s testimony is as-sessed most carefully by the Judge and the verdict must be based not solely on such witness testimony but also on other material evidence. On the other hand the majority of the theory is against such an opinion and suggests this being exclusionary evidence. In Taiwan neither in the provisions of the Criminal Procedural Act nor in the judicial praxis ac-cepts such a regulation in favor of the defendant. This article supports an analog application in Taiwan. | en_US |
| dc.format.extent | 1909787 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.relation (關聯) | 法學評論, 109 ,81-134 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 偵查程序強制辯護 ; 自主原則 ; 對質詰問權 ; 歐洲人權公約無償義務辯護 ; 證據評價解決法 ; 自由心證 ; 證據禁止 ; 權衡原則 ; 規範保護目的理論 ; 智能障礙被告 ; 陳述 ; 法定障礙事由 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Compulsory defense ; Autonomous principle ; Right to cross examination ; Free compulsory defense ; Exclusionary rule ; Handicapped defendant ; Statement | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 偵查程序強制辯護之指定及違法效果——以德國刑事訴訟法為觀察重點（上） | zh_TW |
| dc.title.alternative (其他題名) | Compulsory Defense on Criminal Investigation--Appointment and Effects (1) | en_US |
| dc.type (資料類型) | article | en |
