論美、加法院准駁催眠證據提出法庭之理由

Reasons of Post-Hypnosis Evidence Admissible and Inadmissible in US and Canadian Courts

關於催眠後所為陳述的證言有否證據能力，加拿大自 1979 年以來的法院裁判意見多持肯定，迨至 2007 年的 Trochym 案，加拿大最高法院才對催眠做出較為全面的討論。是催眠證據於英美法系的法院有頗長的歷史受到肯認，其中英國、紐西蘭、澳大利亞、迄今都還能發見法院容許催眠證據提出於法庭，似也無催眠後證言適用證據排除的傾向。反觀美國裁判對於催眠的應用與討論較多，二十世紀末以前，美國各州法院及聯邦最高法院皆陸續建立相關裁判意見，目前學理上有持肯定說與否定說兩派意見，前者認為催眠後證言的證明力較其證據能力重要，後者則認為催眠不具可靠性基礎而應予證據排除，然實務上的普遍共識是對之「謹慎處理」。由於催眠後證據的辯論罕見於我國刑事司法系統，就其應用性，殊值探究。

Since the earliest case on the admissibility of post-hypnotic testimony in 1979, none of the Canadian cases has overall discussions about hypnotically refreshed evidence until the judgment of was made in 2007.? Other common law jurisdictions like the United Kingdom, New Zealand and Australia have found hypnosis evidence admissible and have not opted for categorical exclusion. By contrast, courts have discussed the admissibility of post-hypnosis memories much more frequently in the United States. Two trends have developed. The former contends that a witness has been hypnotized goes to the weight of the testimony rather than to its admissibility; the latter contends that hypnosis is fundamentally unreliable for the purposes of judicial proceedings and that post-hypnosis evidence should be excluded.? In sum, the use of hypnosis in the judicial context has both supporters and opponents, but that the general tendency is to be extremely cautious in dealing with post-hypnosis evidence. Due to insuffi cient debates on the similar subject in Taiwanese criminal courts, the post-hypnotic application is indeed worth exploration.