论文部分内容阅读
作为美国联邦宪法基本条款的对质权,与作为英美证据法基石的传闻证据规则,虽然在要求证人亲自出庭提供证言并接受质证方面具有一致性,但由于纷繁复杂的传闻例外规定的存在,二者在适用中又常常发生矛盾,折现出刑事司法过程中个人利益与公共利益之间的冲突。多年来,美国联邦最高法院一直着力寻求解决二者关系的最佳方案:从蕴含多种可能性的含混期开始,到将对质权条款与传闻规则进行联姻的一致期,再到将二者截然分开的分离期,在这一过程中,美国联邦最高法院完成了一次重大转身。尽管目前的联邦最高法院认为,对质权条款与传闻规则关系的界定符合历史事实和立法者的本意,但其内部仍然存在的重大分歧依然能够体现出来,这并不是一个追求事实真相的过程,而只不过是不同时期、不同立场下的价值权衡和选择。
The hypothecation rules, which are the basic provisions of the U.S. Federal Constitution, and the hearsay rules, which are the cornerstones of the Anglo-American evidence law, although they have consistency in requiring witnesses to present their testimony before testifying in person and accept the testimony of their testimony. However, due to the existence of numerous and complicated hearsay exceptions, Contradictions often occur in their application, revealing the conflicts between personal interests and the public interest in the criminal justice process. Over the years, the Supreme Court of the United States has been trying to find the best solution to the relationship between the two: from the implication of multiple possibilities, to a period of agreement in which the pledge clause and the hearsay rule are marryed, Separate separation period, in the process, the United States Supreme Court completed a major turnaround. Although the current Supreme Court of the United States believes that the definition of the relationship between the Pledge provisions and the hearsay rule is consistent with the historical facts and the original intention of the legislators, the major differences that still exist within it can still be reflected. This is not a process of seeking the truth, It is only a trade-off and choice of value in different periods and positions.