證據鏈的反思與重塑

我國證據鏈的概念緣起于前蘇聯，隨著印證理論的繁榮，證據鏈開始與印證產生糾葛。通過對1887個案例的分析發現，無論是構造還是功能，證據鏈在司法實踐中的認識均較為混亂。從構造上看，實踐中對於證據鏈的主流認識可以總結為證據鏈應由兩個以上證據連接而成；證據鏈中的證據應具有相關性、合法性和真實性；證據鏈中的證據之間應彼此印證；證據鏈的形態應為完整閉合環環相扣。從功能上看，證據鏈有證明標準和採納標準兩種功能。上述構造定位存在忽略規則和經驗的作用以及忽視事實認定的蓋然性等問題；而功能定位則會錯誤提升相應標準。證據鏈的重構應強調其發現事實的動態化作用，運用“五步法”，通過簡單、序列、收斂、閉合、發散和對抗等結構形式對證據、概括及待證事實進行組合，最終形成樹狀網絡拓撲結構。其功能應定位為證據分析方法。這種新型證據鏈不僅可以彌補我國證據分析方法不足的現狀，也可以提升裁判的說理性並為司法智能化提供重要材料。

The concept of evidence chain in China originated from the Soviet Union, but with the prosperity of the corroboration theory, evidence chain began to tangle with the concept of corroboration. Through the analysis of 1887 cases, it is found that the understanding of evidence chain in judicial practice is relatively inconsistent, in terms of both structure and function. With respect to its structure, the mainstream understanding of evidence chain in practice can be summarized as follows: firstly, evidence chain should be connected by more than two pieces of evidence; secondly, the evidence in the evidence chain should have relevance, legitimacy and authenticity; thirdly, evidence in the evidence chain should have effects of mutual corroboration; and fourthly, the evidence chain should be complete, closed and linked. In respect of its functions, evidence chain mainly has two functions: proof standard and admissibility standard. There are some problems in the above structural positioning, such as neglecting the role of rules and experience and neglecting the probability of fact finding. The functional orientation will mistakenly raise the corresponding standards. The reconstruction of evidence chain should emphasize its dynamic role in fact finding, and use the“five-step method”to combine evidence, generalization, and probandum through structural forms of simple structure, serial structure, convergent structure, linked structure, divergent structure, adversarial structure and so on, ultimately forming a tree-form network topology structure. Its function should be positioned as evidence analysis method. This new type of evidence chain will not only make up for the lack of evidence analysis methods in China, but also improve the reasoning of judgments and provide important materials for smart justice.