사법경찰관의 조사자증언과 수사상 진술의 증거활용

Abstract

There is a fundaental meaning in the introduction of the police officer’s testimony in court, because it allows us to use a statement of a suspect on the police investigation as evidence, although there are diverse opinions on the issue of application and effect of police officer’s testimony in court. In practice, police officer’s testimony in court is less in use by the following reasons: ➀ It’s not easy to predict because the special credibility as an admissibility aren’t clear. Furthermore, we often judge by confusing admissibility and reliability of evidence, hence it is very difficult to be recognized for admissibility of evidence. ➁ On the basis of an unauthorized act on admissibility of evidence of a police protocol of examination of a suspect, there has been a practical custom in which the court not only interprets strictly police officer’s testimony, but does not even accept an application for evidence in court. ➂ During the police investigation, it can’t be said that there are institutionalizing means to guarantee the voluntariness of the suspect’s confession. in particular, judging the special credibility as an admissibility by mixing admissibility with reliability results in problems where the police officer’s testimony is not evaluated properly as evidence. This is directly related to the contraction of the police officer’s testimony. A criterion of judgment for admissibility of evidence to be presented in court can be ambiguous and this doesn’t only makes those who presents evidence reluctant to encounter a problem, creating a situation that is difficult to predict whether being used as evidence but also makes those who judges it avoiding situations where such evidence is presented. For the activation of the police officer’s testimony in court, the judge should receive the special credibility as an admissibility with the element for the admissibility of evidence, consequently gauge whether it is ‘directly related’ or ‘presumptive’ in the voluntariness of the statement. We need to consider that major foreign countries such as Germany, France, the United States, Britain and Japan use statements in the investigative stage as evidence, although there were some differences in methods and requirements. From a long-term point of view, the suspect’s consistent statements and the video recording should be recognized as the admissibility of evidence. If there are enough institutionalizing devices to secure and maintain statements in investigative stage like major foreign countries, in the realm of evidence, police officer’s testimony, consistent statements, video recordings, could be served as a way to completely replace the protocol whether written by the prosecutor or by the police.