證據開示制度之研究：以美、日之比較為中心

The Research of Criminal Discovery: Focus on Comparison of American and Japanese System

「刑事證據開示（Criminal Discovery or Disclosure）」制度，為對抗式訴訟體制中雙方當事人知悉他方或揭露己方證據資料的制度，目的在使當事人得於審前進行訴訟準備，避免訴訟突襲。我國刑事訴訟程序，雖沿襲歐陸法系卷證併送及閱卷體制，但多年來採行起訴狀一本主義之倡議，不絕於耳；去（106）年度司法改革國是會議之討論，也通過採行起訴狀一本主義之決議，而證據開示制度作為起訴狀一本主義的重要配套之一，也同樣成為法制改革的重點。特別是司法院在今（107）年1月底正式通過的「國民參與刑事審判法」草案，明文採行卷證不併送制度，並搭配證據開示與書狀先行等規定，未來可預期通過立法的可能性極高。因此，如何設計適合我國的證據開示制度，已成為當前必須研究之課題。以下，本文將以審前階段的證據開示制度為主題，探討美日兩國刑事證據開示制度的沿革（貳）及重要內容（參），進行比較與檢討（肆）；最後，則針對我國現況，嘗試提出制度設計之方向性建議，並代結語（伍）。 The concept of “discovery” or “disclosure” in criminal procedure arises from Anglo-Saxon adversary system, which is set for preventing trial surprise and making pre-trial preparation. Although our criminal system bases upon civil law and file examination system, the proposal of Japanese indictment structure, which is the same as “Non Dossier-Producing System”, has been discussed for decades. Non Dossier-Producing System is designed to eliminate the prejudgment of adjudicators and the quest for fair trial. Given the prosecutors are not allowed to send case files to court while indicting the criminals under Non Dossier-Producing System, there is the necessity to set a litigants-led procedure of discovering or disclosing litigation information in order to examine prosecutors’ evidences from opposing views. Recently, Judicial Yuan announced the draft of “Citizen Participation in Criminal Procedure Act”, which has incorporated the articles of Non Dossier-Producing System and criminal discovery. According to the draft, the prosecutors should not send the case files including evidences of documents or objects to court while indicting the criminals, so the defendant and his attorney could only receive evidences of the case from the prosecutors’ discovery. For this reason, the draft adopted Japanese “Three-Phase Discovery Structure” to let the prosecutors disclose materials or information to the defendant. On the other hand, it also provided that the defendant should disclose his defense such as alibi or insanity when the prosecutors have completed his duty. Besides Japanese structure, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and ABA Standards are also the basic and essential model of criminal discovery in the U.S.. Therefore, how to choose the proper model of criminal discovery has obviously become a material issue in the future. This article is intending to discuss pre-trial criminal discovery system by means of conducting comparative research on American and Japanese law, and trying to propose practice suggestion by reviewing the new draft and present system in Taiwan.