| 英文摘要 |
The Article 212 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of ROC states that both judges and prosecutors may conduct an inquest in order to discover the truth. However, whether this provision is appropriate might be contestable since the prosecutor is one of the parties in a case and the judge plays the role as a factfinder. Additionally, regarding the prosecutor’s ability to examine the out-of-court statement, the ROC Supreme Court has always considered it as an inadmissible hearsay. If the defendant or his lawyer has been notified by the prosecutor to be present at the time of the investigation, evidential capacity can be obtained and the statement can be ruled as admissible at trial in accordance with the Item 2 of Article 159-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, this opinion is flawed in terms of the wrongful application on hearsay rules. Furthermore, whether the execution of a physical examination without a warrant violates the principle of due process is also a topic worthy of in-depth discussion.
|
