國民法官案件之書證調查──以日、美比較法觀點論我國「綜合證據說明書」之規範與實務

國民法官案件之證據調查，除採傳統「最佳證據原則」（原件必要性原則）之外，為同時兼顧審判效率、減輕國民法官負擔，於國民法官法施行細則中，將實務上向所承認、以派生證據取代原始證據作為實質證據使用之作法予以明文化，而明訂「筆錄節本」與「『整合複數可為證據文書』之文書」（即「綜合證據說明書」）兩種可作為實質證據使用之派生證據態樣。其中，「綜合證據說明書」係師法日本裁判員審判實務上「統合偵查報告書」之作法；而該「統合偵查報告書」之性質，復類似於美國聯邦證據規則第1006條所稱「summaryevidence」（摘要證據）之概念。「統合偵查報告書」與「摘要證據」在日、美各自立法體系脈絡下，均有其解釋適用之依據。然而，我國刑事訴訟制度規範架構，與日本、美國原均有差異，而我國於師法他國作法之際，未就「綜合證據說明書」於我國法制下之定性及定位予以昭明，亦未釐清適用於他國之作法，於我國是否亦有法律規範或理論基礎可資支持，導致實務上就「綜合證據說明書」之內涵理解及實踐方式各異，並就其記載內容發展出類型一即「記載『原始證據內容摘整結果』」及類型二即「併載『原始證據足以證明之不爭執事實（證據評價）』」兩種相異型態，且各類型均與我國刑事訴訟既存架構體系迭生衝突。因此，本文爰梳理日本法、美國法各就證據調查所為之相關規範及「統合偵查報告書」與「摘要證據」之內涵，以比較法之觀點檢視我國「綜合證據說明書」之法規範本身及前述實務所發展之兩種類型態樣於我國引發質疑之面向及原因，並就我國以「綜合證據說明書」作為實質證據使用之規範方式，提出具體修正建議。

In criminal trials involving citizen judges, the“Best Evidence Rule”(Requirement of Original) is also applicable. However, in consideration of trial efficiency and reducing the burden on citizen judges, practices recognizing secondary evidence as substantive evidence are explicitly stated in The Implementation Rules of the Citizen Judges Act. Specifically, these rules establish two types of secondary evidence that can be used as substantive evidence:“excerpt of the records”and“documents containing multiple evidentiary documents”(referred to as“comprehensive evidence description documents”). The“comprehensive evidence description document”is modeled after the practice of“integrated investigation reports”in the Japanese saiban-in (lay judge) system. The nature of this“integrated investigation report”is similar to the concept of“summary evidence”as defined in Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 1006 in the United States. Both the“integrated investigation report”and“summary evidence”have their respective interpretations and applications within the legal frameworks of Japan and the United States. However, the regulatory framework of criminal procedure in Taiwan differs from that of Japan and the United States. When adopting practices from other countries, legislators in Taiwan have not clearly defined the nature of the“comprehensive evidence description document”within Taiwan’s own legal system, nor have they clarified whether the practices of other countries are applicable to Taiwan. This lack of clarity has led to different understandings and practices regarding the content of the“comprehensive evidence description document”in practice, resulting in two distinct types: Type I, which involves“summarizing the content of original evidence,”and Type II, which involves“incorporating undisputed facts that the original evidence is sufficient to prove (evidence evaluation).”Both types conflict with the existing framework of criminal procedure in Taiwan. Therefore, this article compares the relevant regulations in Japan and the United States regarding evidence rules and the concept and practice of“integrated investigation reports”and“summary evidence.”Lastly, from a comparative law perspective, it analyzes the reasons for disputes surrounding the“comprehensive evidence description document”in Taiwan and proposes specific amendment suggestions regarding the regulatory approach of using it as substantive evidence.