從調查必要性到證據關聯性――以日本裁判員制度為中心

From Test for Necessary to Test for Relevant Evidence: Focusing on Japan’s Saiban-in System

為使國民能參與刑事司法審判，我國於 2020 年 7 月 22 日三讀通過「國民法官法」，經 2 年半準備期間後，將於 2023 年 1 月正式施行上路。其中，國民法官案件之審理能否密集、順暢進行，繫諸於準備程序能否有效對當事人之主張及聲請證據進行有效之整理。在國民法官法案件之準備程序中，對於訴訟雙方當事人聲請調查之證據，係委由法院依國民法官法第 62 條第 2、3 項，對證據調查必要性進行審酌。不過，在日本裁判員制度的運作上，雖與我國同以證據調查必要性，進行證據及主張之整理，最終卻導致準備程序長期化等弊病，因而有學者呼籲應屏棄證據調查必要性基準，改以「證據關聯性」作為證據及主張整理之依據。基此，本文對於日本裁判員制度中，關於證據及主張整理的基準，如何從證據調查必要性進展至證據關聯性，進行爬梳與分析。基此觀點進一步討論、分析為符合當事人進行主義之架構，應以證據關聯性作為證據及主張篩選之基準，並提出修法建議作為結論。

In order to enable citizens to participate in criminal justice trials, Taiwan enacted the “National Judge Act” on July 22, 2020, it will be officially implemented in January 2023. Among them, whether the trial of a national judge’s case can be conducted intensively and smoothly depends on whether the preparation procedure can effectively organize the parties’ claims and claims evidence. In the preparation procedure of the National Judge Law case, the courts shall consider the necessity of the evidence investigation in accordance with Article 62, Item 2 and 3 of the National Judge Law. However, in the operation of the Japanese Saiban-in system, although the necessity of investigating the necessity of evidence and collating the evidence and claims together with Taiwan, it eventually led to the long-term preparation procedures. Therefore, some scholars called for abandoning the evidence investigation necessity standard, changing to “evidence relevance” as the basis for collating evidence and claims. Based on this, this article will sort out and analyze how to progress from the necessity of evidence investigation to the relevance of evidence for the collation of evidence and claims in the Japanese Saiban-in system. Based on this point of view, further discussion and analysis are in line with the party-oriented framework, and the relevance of evidence should be used as the possibility of screening, and propose amendments to the law as a conclusion.