辯護律師核實證據問題研究

Verification of Evidence by Defense Lawyers

2012年《刑事訴訟法》修改，有關辯護律師核實證據的內容、範圍和方式等均不明確，隨著《刑法修正案（九）》的實施，律師核實證據還將面臨“洩露案件資訊”的執業風險。基於價值考量，核實證據內容應限定為客觀上矛盾、主觀上“存疑”的證據而非全案證據；核實範圍上，在確認律師有權對言詞證據進行核實的同時，應設置若干例外，並根據不同的訴訟階段確定不同的核實範圍，辦案機關可針對個案以“負面清單”形式禁止律師對某些敏感資訊進行披露；在核實方式上不宜作出硬性規定，但應注意區分被追訴人是否被羈押的情形，對於未被羈押的，可予以適當限制。此外，尚需完善配套制度：修訂律師執業行為規範；確立違法監聽排除規則；賦予律師偵查階段有限的核實證據權。

The Amendment of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2012 doesn't define the contents, range of and approaches to the verification of evidence by defense lawyers. With the enforcement of the Amendment (IX) of the Criminal Law, it is faced with the professional risk of 'divulging case information'. Considering the balance between values, the contents of evidence verification should be limited to the objectively contradictory or subjectively doubtful evidence. The range of evidence verification should be governed by a general principle that defense lawyers have the right to verify testimonies with certain exceptions. The ranges of evidence verification should vary at different stages of the procedure. Agencies handling a case can list the information forbidden to be divulged by defense lawyers. It is not proper to define concrete approaches to evidence verification which should be different when applied to the accused in custody and the accused not in custody. What should be improved are ethical rules, the rule to exclude illegal monitoring evidence. Limited right to verify evidence during the investigation stage should be granted to defense lawyers.