수사절차에서의 진술내용에 관한 증거방법 - 전문법칙상 수사기관이 작성한 조서의 증거능력을 중심으로 -

Abstract

This article examines how 'Hearsay Rule' in US regulates admissibility of statement evidence, especially statements collected during interrogation by law enforcement officers. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence in US, written statement by law enforcement officers can't be presented to the court or tribunals. To use statements of an accused or a witness as an evidence in the court, the inspector who interrogated the accused or the witness should give his testimony in the court, unless the accused or the witness takes their own stands by themselves. Moreover, Hearsay Rule regulates more strictly the inspector's testimony of the statement of the witness than that the statement of the accused. To affect the jury's decision, the inspector's testimony should be about name or descriptions of the suspect which the inspectors have collected from victims or witnesses at the crime scene during or just after the crime. If the inspector give testimony about statement collected during interrogation, the testimony couldn't be accepted as an evidence in the court without guarantee of cross-examination. From the point of 'Hearsay Rule', the evidence rules under the law of Criminal Procedure has some problems. Under criminal justice system in korea, documentary evidence is used more easily as an evidence in the court than the testimony of a witness. The court denies the admissibility of written statement by the law enforcement agency, moreover, doesn't guarantee the right of cross-examination. This article criticizes that criminal justice system in Korea both neglects the intent and the purpose of 'Hearsay Rules' and concentrates only on efficiency of criminal justice system.