起訴卷證併不併送的迷思

The Argumentations between Indictment with（without） the Dossier & Evidence

起訴卷證併不併送的辯證，學理與實務都沒有掌握住核心的思維，大抵是從表象的問題，作為論述辯證的依據。表象性的論述，無法提供解決問題的基礎。卷證併不併送的問題，所涉及的層面，包括起訴正當性的基礎、審判程序進行的關係，以及被告防禦權保障問題，並非僅在於是否造成法官偏見而已。現行檢討併不併送的問題，大多傾向改行起訴狀一本，並輔以證據開示的方式，如此似乎就能規避法官偏見的疑慮，而可以實現公平審判的目標，這是相當有問題的思考方式！也無助於整體問題的解決。本文嘗試跳脫既有思考的模式，以程序學理整體性的觀察，試圖破除卷證併不併送問題的迷思，以另一種符合邏輯思維的方式，提出卷證併不併送思考的實質內涵，以及如何保障被告防禦權的思維方式，以解決爭論已久的問題。

The argumentations between indictment with the dossier & evidence and indictment without the dossier & evidence by the prosecution do not fully catch the essence of thinking in the academic and practical circle. Conventional wisdom can not solve the puzzle since it only looks at the prima facie of the questions for reasoning. The nuances between indictment with the dossier and indictment without the dossier involve the legitimacy of prosecution, trial procedures, defensive rights of the defendant but not the prejudice of judge. It is problematic to argue that the bill of prosecution only coupling with discloure of evidence(discovery) can avoid the criticism of the prejudice of judge and fulfill the goal of a fair trial. This article aims to go beyond the conventional wisdom, logically propose the substantial connotation of differences between indictment with the dossier and indictment without the dossier, and contend the way of thinking to protect the defensive right of the defendant in order to reslove the long-lasting academic quarrels.