본문 바로가기
KERD
논문KCI 등재

당사자주의하에서의 대면권과 전문법칙 - 미국의 크로포드(Crawford) 원칙과 유럽인권 협약상 대면권의 비교를 중심으로 -

The Confrontation Right and Hearsay Rule under the Adversary System - A Comparative Study Focusing on the Crawford principle and ECHR -

이성기
한국비교형사법학회 (Korean Association Of Comparative Criminal Law)|2011.07|비교형사법연구 (Korean Journal of Comparative Criminal Law)|제13권 제1호|pp. 125-157|DOI 10.23894/kjccl.2011.13.1.006

0

조회

0

다운로드

11

인용

0

참고문헌

키워드

전문법칙유럽인권협약ECHR대면권Crawford크로포드Hearsay증언적 진술Confrontation RightTestimonial Statement
주제분류법학

초록

This study aims to contour the confrontation right of Korea by comparing it to the Crawford principle of the United States and the confrontation right of the European Convention on Human Rights which has been set forth by the European Court of Human Rights(hereinafter ECHR) in Strasbourg. Undoubtedly, the accused's right to confront declarants who testify against him/her in criminal trials, has been considered a fundamental right for effective defense, regardless of the types of criminal systems, philosophies, and social cultures. Therefore, confrontation right of the accused has been a universal norm and a fundamental procedural right in criminal procedures all around the world. The confrontation right under the adversary system, however, is considerably different, in that the adversary system clearly differentiates testimonial statements and non-testimonial statements; the confrontation right under the adversary system strictly scrutinizes the admissibility of untested testimonial hearsay and it allows untested non-testimonial statements subject to the rule against hearsay. Therefore, the Crawford principle deems all untested testimonial statements inadmissible. Unlike Crawford, however, ECHR does not recognize the difference. Rather, it only requires that hearsay not be the sole or decisive evidence of a criminal conviction. This paper analyzes hearsay rules of Korea and finds some similarities with Crawford. Based on this analysis, it concludes the confrontation rights reflected in Korea evidentiary rules are mostly based on the adversary system. This article goes on to suggest some reformative measures for the Korean evidentiary rules to be consistent with the confrontation right of Korea.

Abstract

This study aims to contour the confrontation right of Korea by comparing it to the Crawford principle of the United States and the confrontation right of the European Convention on Human Rights which has been set forth by the European Court of Human Rights(hereinafter ECHR) in Strasbourg. Undoubtedly, the accused's right to confront declarants who testify against him/her in criminal trials, has been considered a fundamental right for effective defense, regardless of the types of criminal systems, philosophies, and social cultures. Therefore, confrontation right of the accused has been a universal norm and a fundamental procedural right in criminal procedures all around the world. The confrontation right under the adversary system, however, is considerably different, in that the adversary system clearly differentiates testimonial statements and non-testimonial statements; the confrontation right under the adversary system strictly scrutinizes the admissibility of untested testimonial hearsay and it allows untested non-testimonial statements subject to the rule against hearsay. Therefore, the Crawford principle deems all untested testimonial statements inadmissible. Unlike Crawford, however, ECHR does not recognize the difference. Rather, it only requires that hearsay not be the sole or decisive evidence of a criminal conviction. This paper analyzes hearsay rules of Korea and finds some similarities with Crawford. Based on this analysis, it concludes the confrontation rights reflected in Korea evidentiary rules are mostly based on the adversary system. This article goes on to suggest some reformative measures for the Korean evidentiary rules to be consistent with the confrontation right of Korea.

참고문헌 (64)

  1. Mirjan R. Damaska, "Evidence Law Adrift" (1997), Yale
  2. Kenneth S. Broun, "McCormick on Evidence(6th ed)", pp.539~ (2006)
  3. "Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36", ~ (2004)
  4. Ralf Michales, "The Functional Method of Comparative Law, In The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Law", pp.340~346 (2007)
  5. William Twining, "Rethinking Evidence", 75~ (2006)
  6. James B. Thayer, "Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law", 266~ (1898)
  7. John H. Wigmore, "Evidence Trials at Common Law, Vol. 1", pp.689~ (1983)
  8. John H. Langbein, "The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial", 330~ (2003)
  9. Edmund Morgan, "The Jury and the Exclusionary Rules of Evidence", U. Chi. L. Rev, 4, pp.247~258 (1937)
  10. Dale A. Nance, "The Best Evidence Principle", Iowa L. Rev, 73, pp.227~ (1988)
  11. Andrew Choo, "Hearsay and Confrontation in Criminal Trials", 7~ (1996)
  12. Nesson, "the Evidence or the Event? on Judicial Proof and the Acceptability of Verdicts", Harv. L. Rev, 98, pp.1357~ (1985)
  13. Eileen A. Scallen, "Constitutional Dimension of Hearsay Reform: Toward a Three-Dimensional Confrontation Clause", Minn. L. Rev, 76, pp.623~ (1992)
  14. "Ohio v. Roberts, 488 U.S. 56", ~ (1980)
  15. "Crawford, 541 U.S. 63", ~
  16. "Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406", ~ (2007)
  17. Erwinn Chemerinsky, "Constitutional Law", pp.18~ (2006), ASPEN
  18. Paul Roberts, "Criminal Evidence", 667~668 (2004)
  19. 조국, "검사작성 피의자신문조서와 영상녹화물의 증거능력", 저스티스, (107), pp.171~192 (2008), 한국법학원
  20. "Washington v. Davis, 547 U.S. 818", ~
  21. "Michigan v. Bryant, 131 S. Ct. 1143", ~ (2011)
  22. "Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 129 S. Ct. 2527", ~ (2009)
  23. "Bullcoming v. Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 62", ~ (2010)
  24. National Research Council, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward", ~ (2009)
  25. "Giles v. California, 128 S. Ct. 2678", ~ (2008)
  26. "Giles, 128 S. Ct. 2693", ~
  27. Richard D. Friedman, "Truth and Its Rivals in the Law of Hearsay and Confrontation", Hastings L.J, 49, pp.545~552 (1998)
  28. 김희균, "증거결정의 근거와 이론 ― 논증도식과 합리적 사실인정론 ―", 서울법학, 18(2), pp.25~53 (2010), 법학연구소
  29. Alexander Volokh, "N Guilty Men", U. Pa. L. Rev, 146, pp.173~174 (1997)
  30. Brian Forst, "Errors of Justice", 57~65 (2004)
  31. Sarah J. Summers, "The Right to Confrontation after Crawford v. Washington: A 'Continental European' Perspective", International Commentary on Evidence, 2(1), pp.12~ (2004)
  32. Richard D. Friedman, "Confrontation: the Search for Basic Principles", Geo. L. J, 86(64), pp.1011~1026 (1998)
  33. Richard D. Friedman, "No Link: The Jury and the Origins of the Confrontation Right and the Hearsay Rule, In the Dearest Birth Right of the People of England", pp.94~ (2002)
  34. Richard D. Friedman, "Anchors and Flotsam: Is Evidence Law "Adrift?"", Yale L. J, 107, pp.1921~1938 (1998)
  35. Randolph N. Jonakait, "Origins of the Confrontation Clause: an Alternative History", Rut. L. J, 27, pp.77~99 (1995)
  36. "유럽의회(Council of Europe) 홈페이지"[URL]
  37. "ECHR 홈페이지"[URL]
  38. "ECHR 가이드라인"[URL]
  39. "Alec Stone Seet and Helen Keller eds", ~ (2008)
  40. "Acquaviva v. France, 333 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) 3, P 66, at 17", ~ (1995)
  41. Dennis P. Riordan, "The Rights to a Fair Trial and to Examine Witnesses Under the Spanish Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights", Hastings Const. L. Q, 26, pp.373~407 (1999)
  42. "110 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A)", Eur. H. R. Rep, 13, pp.175~ (1986)
  43. "203 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A)", Eur. H. R. Rep, 15, pp.597~ (1991)
  44. "146 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A)", Eur. H. R. Rep, 11, pp.360~ (1989)
  45. "191 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) at 2", Eur. H.R. Rep, 16, pp.574~ (1990)
  46. "No. 35253", 97, Eur. Ct. H. R, 1999
  47. "2001-II Eur. Ct. H. R. 167", Eur. H. R. Rep, 36, pp.807~ (2001)
  48. "Al-Khawaja v. United Kingdom,App. No. 26766", 05, 2009, pp.49, 1~
  49. "Bracci v. Italy, App. No. 36822", 02, PP 13, 19, Oct. 13, 2005
  50. Roger W. Kirst, "Hearsay and The Right of Confrontation in the European Court of Human Rights", QLR, 21, pp.777~804 (2003)
  51. "헌법재판소 1994. 4. 28. 선고 93헌바26", ~
  52. "헌법재판소 1997. 11. 27. 94헌마 60", ~
  53. "헌법재판소 1996. 12. 26. 선고 94헌바1", ~
  54. 심희기, "적법절차의 함의와 반대신문권의 법적성질", 영남법학, 3(1), pp.393~401 (1997)
  55. "대법원 2001. 9. 14. 선고 2001도 1550", ~
  56. "대법원 2010. 1 14. 선고 2009도9344", ~
  57. "헌법재판소 2010. 11. 25. 선고 2009헌바57", ~
  58. "헌법재판소 1992. 12. 24. 선고 92헌가8", ~
  59. "헌법재판소 2004. 9. 23. 선고 2000헌마 138", ~
  60. 최병각, "영상녹화물에 수록된 성폭력범죄피해자의 진술", 동아법학, (50), pp.201~230 (2011), 법학연구소
  61. 정웅석, "개정법상 공범자의 법정외 진술의 증거능력", 저스티스, (107), pp.145~170 (2008), 한국법학원
  62. "대법원 2008. 9. 25. 선고 20008도6985", ~
  63. "대법원 2006. 12. 8. 선고 2005도9730", ~
  64. 유해용, "공판중심주의와 전문법칙", 저스티스, (98), pp.185~222 (2007), 한국법학원

관련 논문AI추천

형사증거법의 재조명II: 크로포드 이후 전문법칙의 미래김희균한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2013 · 제25권 제1호참고인진술의 증거능력을 인정하기 위한 대면권과 전문법칙과의 관계 - Crawford 판결과 Bryant 판결을 중심으로 -정웅석대검찰청 · 형사법의 신동향2012 · 제35호전문법칙의 의의 및 변호인의 반대신문이 일부만 이루어진 조서의 증거능력에 관한 소고 -서울중앙지법 2016. 9. 29 선고 2015노3170 판결을 중심으로-주승희법학연구원 · 법학논총2017 · 제24권 제3호미국법 상 전문법칙의 최근 동향 : 공판중심주의의 문제김희균한국형사법학회 · 형사법연구2008 · 제20권 제2호증언불능 증인의 법정 외 진술과 형사소송법 제314조 해석론 - 부당행위에 의한 권리박탈 이론과 유럽인권법원 판례와 관련하여 -김종구법과정책연구원 · 법과정책2025 · 제31권 제3호크로포드 사건 : 형사피고인의 대질심문권의 재발견김희균사단법인 법조협회 · 법조2005 · 제54권 제7호

이 간행물의 다른 논문 (12건)

위험형법의 전개에 대한 비판과 바람직한 형법적 대응방안백상진pp. 1-20책임범위이론에 기초한 현행 양형기준의 개선방안이현정pp. 21-48은행거래금전의 재물성과 장물성에 관한 異意임상규pp. 49-72특수강도죄의 실행의 착수시기 - 결합범의 구조적 유형화에 기반한 모색 -류부곤pp. 73-94프로젝트 파이낸싱(Project Financing)에서의 배임죄이정민pp. 95-123
원문 보기