围绕同案被告人的口供能否互为证人证言的问题,学术界激烈争鸣了十数年,真可谓众说纷纭,莫衷一是。具有代表性的观点归纳起来主要有三种:第一种认为,同案被告人的口供在任何情况下都属于被告人的口供,不能当作证人证言;第二种认为,同案被告人的口供如果供述一致,可以互为证人证言;第三种认为,同案被告人的口供原则上仍属于被告人口供,但在某些特殊情况下,其中有的同案被告人的一致供述,可以起到证人证言的作用。第三种观点认为的“特殊情况”是指以下四种例外:其一,在同一诉讼程序中,某被告人检举同案被告人与自己的犯罪无关的犯罪事实,应视为证人证言;其二,已分案处理并已审结的前案被告人,对后 Whether or not the oral confession of the defendants in the same case can testify as testimony to each other is a controversial and controversial argument among academic circles over the past decade. There are mainly three representative views: the first one is that the confession of the defendant in the same case belongs to the defendant’s confession under any circumstances and can not be used as a witness’s testimony. The second argument is that the confession of the defendant in the same court If the confessions are consistent, they can testify as witness to each other. Thirdly, the confession of the defendant in the same case still belongs to the defendant in principle. However, in some special cases, some of the confessions concurred by the co-defendants may serve as The role of witness testimony. The third view holds that “special circumstances” mean the following four kinds of exceptions: First, in the same proceedings, the fact that a defendant files a crime not related to his own crime by a defendant should be regarded as witness testimony ; Second, the divisional has been completed and dealt with the defendant in the previous case, right after