庭審實質化改革證人出庭問題研究

On the Witness Testfying in Court of Making Criminal Trails Substantive

證人出庭作證是現代刑訴制度的基本要求，尤其是對抗式訴訟下控辯雙方主導的證據調查，需要證人出庭以有效展開法庭調查。在强調證人出庭以貫徹傳聞證據規則或者直接言詞原則要求的訴訟構造中，人之證據方法不僅針對言詞證據也包括實物證據，這體現了人證調查的的重要作用。雖然證人出庭對於實現刑訴法的基本目標意義重大，但幷不意味著刑訴活動中所有的證人都必須出庭，僅在控辯雙方對證人提供的證言存在疑問或爭議，需要通過對相關證人發問以消除疑點時，此時證人出庭才是必要的。庭審實質化改革儘管在一定程度上促使了部分必要證人的出庭，但必要證人的出庭率仍然偏低。證人出庭作證本身幷非目的，而是爲落實傳聞證據規則或直接言詞原則，以確保控辯雙方尤其是辯方的對質權。司法實踐中必要證人出庭問題的解决，需要在憲法層面確定被告人享有的對質權，明確規定排除不符合必要證人出庭例外的傳聞證據規則，以及完善强制證人出庭作證、證人作證補償與保護等配套制度。

The witness testfying in court is the basic requirement of the modern criminal system, especially in the case of confrontation litigation the prosecution and the defense lead evidence investigation, which requires the witness to appear in court to carry out the court investigation effectively. In the litigation structure that emphasizes the appearance of a witness in order to carry out the hearsay evidence rule or the principle of direct verbal speech, the method of human evidence not only reflects the evidence of the words, but also reflects the important role of the witness investigation. Although it is of great significance for the witness to appear in order to achieve the basic objectives of the criminal procedure law, it does not mean that all witnesses in the criminal proceedings must appear in the court. Only if there is any doubt or controversy advanced by the prosecution and the defense in the testimony provided by witness, it is necessary to ask the witness to appear before the question is clear. Although the reform of making criminal trials substantive, to some extent, prompts the appearing in court of some necessary witnesses, the attendance rate of the necessary witness is still low. It is not the purpose of a witness to appear in court , but it is to enforce the hearsay evidence rules or the principle of direct verbal speech to ensure the right of confrontation, especially the the defenses. In the judicial practice, the solution of the necessary witness to appear in court needs to clearly stipulate the right of confrontation enjoyed by the defendant at the constitutional level, to clearly stipulate the exclusion of the rules of hearsay evidence that do not meet the necessary witnesses requirements, to perfect the compulsory witness testifying and the compensation and protection supporting system of the witness testfying.