[1]王景龙,焦圣博.法律与事实的识别难题及应对方案——兼论我国事实问题清单制度中裁判者的职能分工[J].常州大学学报(社会科学版),2024,25(01):20-31.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2024.01.003]
　Wang Jinglong,Jiao Shengbo.Identification Challenges and Response Plans of Law and Facts:Concurrently Discussing the Functional Division of Judges and Jurors in the System of the List of Factual Issues in China[J].Journal of Changzhou University(Social Science Edition),2024,25(01):20-31.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2024.01.003]
点击复制

法律与事实的识别难题及应对方案——兼论我国事实问题清单制度中裁判者的职能分工()
分享到：

常州大学学报(社会科学版)[ISSN:2095-042X/CN:32-1821/C]

卷:
第25卷
期数:
2024年01期
页码:
20-31
栏目:
政治·法学研究
出版日期:
2024-02-28

文章信息/Info

Title:
Identification Challenges and Response Plans of Law and Facts:Concurrently Discussing the Functional Division of Judges and Jurors in the System of the List of Factual Issues in China
作者:
王景龙; 焦圣博
Author(s):
Wang Jinglong;  Jiao Shengbo
关键词:
分解式;  是否式;  事实问题清单;  法官指引
Keywords:
mode of decomposition;  mode of yes or no;  list of factual issues;  instruction of judges
分类号:
D926.2
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.2095-042X.2024.01.003
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
保障事实问题清单制度的良性运行,是我国七人合议庭中的司法裁判权在法官与陪审员之间配置所面临的重要难题。事实问题清单内容的设计或拆分、混合,是解决该问题的首要任务。在理论上应分析特定语境下的事实命题,了解“二级事实”的可拆分性,以司法证明的角度看待法律与事实两者的关联性,最终以“适宜由陪审员认定的事实问题”作为清单中的问题,在事实问题清单制作中审判长以问答的形式呈现。事实问题清单制度可以借鉴域外的经验进行设计,采用“分解型”的提问模式、“是否型”的回答方式,由法官决定证据采纳,并提供完善的救济渠道。另外,可将法官指引融入事实问题清单中,形成具有中国特色的事实审与法律审的区分机制。
Abstract:
To ensure the benign operation of the system of the list of factual issues is a significant challenge faced by the allocation of judicial power between judges and jurors in the seven-person collegiate bench in China. How to design the contents of the list of factual issues and how to split or mix them are the primary tasks to solve this problem. Theoretically, it is necessary to analyze the fact proposition in a specific context, understand the separability of “secondary facts”, treat the relationship between law and facts from the perspective of judicial proof, and finally present it on the list of factual issues as “factual issues suitable for determination by jurors” and in the question-answer form by chief judges in the factual list making. The system of the list of factual issues can be designed by referring to foreign experience and practices, adopting the “decomposition” question mode and “yes or no” answer mode, and the admissibility of evidence and thorough relief channels to be decided and provided by judges. Furthermore, the instruction of judges can also be integrated into the list of factual issues to form a distinguishing mechanism between factual trial and legal trial with Chinese characteristics.

参考文献/References:

[1]施鹏鹏.刑事问题列表制度研究:以完善人民陪审员事实认定机制为切入点[J].北方法学,2017,11(6):73-84.
[2]刘仁琦.人民陪审员参审职权改革的实体与程序基础:以庭审实质化的推进为切入点[J].法学,2020(6):95-109.
[3]尼尔·麦考密克.修辞与法治:一种法律推理理论[M].程朝阳,孙光宁,译.北京:北京大学出版社,2014:77-79.
[4]胡铭,仇塍迪.论刑事案件中人民陪审员的事实认定范围[J].浙江工商大学学报,2021(6):33-45.
[5]特伦斯·安德森,戴维·舒姆,威廉·特文宁.证据分析[M].张保生,朱婷,张月波,等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2012:194.
[6]孙笑侠.西方法谚精选[M].北京:法律出版社,2005:211.
[7]罗纳德J 艾伦.艾伦教授论证据法[M].张保生,译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,2014:127.
[8]陈杭平.论“事实问题”与“法律问题”的区分[J].中外法学,2011,23(2):322-336.
[9]THAYER J B.“Law and fact”in jury trials[J].Harvard law review,1890(4):147.
[10]杰罗姆·弗兰克.初审法院:美国司法中的神话与现实[M].赵承寿,译.北京:中国政法学出版社,2007.
[11]本杰明·卡多佐.司法过程的性质[M].苏力,译.北京:商务印书馆,1998:113-114.
[12]WILLIAMS R A.When is an error not an error? reform of jurisdictional review of error of law and fact[J].Public law paper,2007(17):793-808.
[13]FARINA C R.Statutory interpretation and the balance of power in the administrative state[J].Columbia law review,1989(89):452.
[14]THAMAN S C.Questions of fact and law in russian jury trials:the practice of the cassational courts under the jury laws of 1864 and 1993[J].Relations internationales,2001(72):415-450.
[15]高一飞.上帝的声音:陪审团法理[M].北京:中国民主法制出版社,2016:77.
[16]普维庭.现代证明责任问题[M].吴越,译.北京:法律出版社,2006:90.
[17]陈学权.刑事陪审中法律问题与事实问题的区分[J].中国法学,2017(1):53-70.
[18]高翔.陪审员参与民事案件事实认定研究[D].重庆:西南政法大学,2019:31.
[19]刘梅湘,孙明泽.刑事陪审团指示制度研究:论中国刑事诉讼人民陪审员指示的完善[J].重庆大学学报(社会科学版),2019,25(2):132-144.
[20]聚焦“陪审案件事实问题与法律问题区分的规则与程序”[N].人民法院报,2018-12-12(6).
[21]王景龙.为“非法证据排除规则”正名[J].甘肃政法学院学报,2017(3):43-61.
[22]成小爱.美国审前证据动议程序:证据的隔离机制[N].人民法院报,2020-11-20(8).
[23]高翔.陪审员参审民事案件中事实问题与法律问题的区分[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2018,36(3):179-188.
[24]陈炳杰.论陪审制下问题清单制度的构建[J].人民司法,2020(16):45-51.
[25]周赟.演绎推理与司法结论的不确定性[J].厦门大学学报(哲学社会科学版),2015(6):136-144.
[26]PENNINGTON N,HASTIE R.Explaining the evidence: tests of the story model for juror decision making[J].Journal of personality and social psychology,1992,62(2):184-205.

备注/Memo

备注/Memo:
作者简介:王景龙,法学博士,西安财经大学法学院副教授、硕士研究生导师; 焦圣博,西安财经大学一带一路与财经法治研究中心研究员。
基金项目:国家社会科学基金一般项目“刑事证据补救规则的理论阐释与体系构建”(19XFX005); 陕西省社科基金一般项目“涉案企业合规不起诉的实证考察与制度完善研究”(2022E024)。
更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01