刺激性證據在國民參與審判程序中之使用

Admissibility of Stimulatory Evidence in Criminal Trials with the Participation of Citizen Judges

刺激性證據指的是在調查過程中可能引發國民法官情緒強烈反應的證據，如被害人屍體照片、案發現場血跡照片等，主要用於顯示被害人的傷害程度和犯罪環境，幫助國民法官推斷被告的暴力程度和心理狀態。然而，這些證據也可能激起國民法官的情緒，如憤怒、同情，進而增加被告被定罪和受嚴厲判決的可能性。為了避免影響國民法官的心證，造成偏見或預斷，國民法官法施行細則第118條第2項設有排除規定。在適用上，是以降低危險為原則，法院應優先考慮施行細則第119條第1項所列之四種降低偏見風險的方法；倘若無法降低，也只有在「權衡調查該證據對國民法官法庭以公正、客觀、中立方式審理之危害程度顯然高於其正面效益」時，始能排除該刺激性證據。這樣的規定隱含了一個前提，即刺激會引發國民法官之情緒，而情緒反應可能使國民法官更傾向以直覺方式作成判斷，進而提高偏見風險，本文將從認知科學的角度來檢討「刺激－情緒－偏見」的前提是否存在。此外，由於該規定係參考美國聯邦證據規則第403條而來，是以本文將比較美國法之規範與操作，逐一檢視刺激性證據之體系定位、操作規則以及權衡法則之判斷基準，以期釐清刺激性證據於國民參與審判程序中之定位與操作基準。

Stimulatory evidence refers to evidence that may evoke strong emotional reactions from citizen judges during the investigation process, such as photos of the victim's body or images of blood at the crime scene. This type of evidence is primarily used to demonstrate the extent of the victim's injuries and the crime environment, helping citizen judges infer the defendant's violence and psychological state. However, such evidence can also arouse emotions in citizen judges, such as anger and sympathy, potentially increasing the likelihood of the defendant being convicted and receiving a severe sentence. To avoid influencing the citizen judges' impartiality and preventing unfair prejudice, the stimulatory evidence could be excluded by Article 118, Paragraph 2 of the Enforcement Rules of the Citizen Judges Act. In practice, the principle is to reduce the risk, and courts should prioritize the four methods listed in Article 119, Paragraph 1 of the Enforcement Rules to mitigate the risk of prejudice. If the risk cannot be mitigated, the court could exclude this stimulatory evidence, only when ''its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of its unfair prejudice''. This provision implies a premise that stimulation will induce emotions in citizen judges, and emotionally affected citizen judges will make biased judgments. This paper will examine from a cognitive science perspective whether the premise of ''stimulation-emotion-bias'' exists. Additionally, since this provision is based on Federal Rule of Evidence 403 in the United States, this article will compare the regulations and practices of U.S. law, examining the systematic positioning, operational rules, and balancing principles for stimulatory evidence to clarify the use of such evidence.