Discovery and the Prosecutor’s Ethical Obligations - with respect to the US Supreme Court’s Brady Rule -
2
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
In the adversarial system of the United States, the scope of the constitutionally-imposed duty of the prosecution to disclose to the defense any known evidence that tends to negate guilt or reduce punishment is determined by reference to the rule first enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland. In comparison, while it is true that Korea’s criminal procedure is based on its German law roots, the Korean criminal trial is currently neither strictly inquisitorial, nor is it entirely adversarial, but rather attempts to combine the best aspects of both for a fair opportunity to ascertain the truth. As is the case in German law, Korean discovery procedures already offer the criminal defendant meaningful access to the prosecution’s dossier. A number of Korean scholars have focused on the Brady rule as a model for reform to further enhance the rights of criminal defendants against the public power of the state, while others have suggested an ethical standard that affords the criminal defendant a broader scope of protection than the Brady rule, such as is characterized by Rule 3.8(d) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. This paper briefly reviews and compares German and Korean laws that establish the criminal defendants’ right to discovery and their prescription of the broader prosecutorial duty to investigate and disclose exculpatory evidence. It also introduces in narrative form, for a Korean audience, the background, promulgation and development of the Brady rule, and outlines some of its serious shortcomings to explain the main reasons why the Brady rule does not function to ensure the due process rights of criminal defendants. The paper concludes with a suggestion that if scholars and lawmakers decide that further reform is needed to enhance the rights of criminal defendants in Korea, a more productive focus than the Brady rule may be elaboration of the prosecution’s broader ethical obligations or an expansion of current discovery rights to more closely model German criminal procedure.
Abstract
In the adversarial system of the United States, the scope of the constitutionally-imposed duty of the prosecution to disclose to the defense any known evidence that tends to negate guilt or reduce punishment is determined by reference to the rule first enunciated by the United States Supreme Court in Brady v. Maryland. In comparison, while it is true that Korea’s criminal procedure is based on its German law roots, the Korean criminal trial is currently neither strictly inquisitorial, nor is it entirely adversarial, but rather attempts to combine the best aspects of both for a fair opportunity to ascertain the truth. As is the case in German law, Korean discovery procedures already offer the criminal defendant meaningful access to the prosecution’s dossier. A number of Korean scholars have focused on the Brady rule as a model for reform to further enhance the rights of criminal defendants against the public power of the state, while others have suggested an ethical standard that affords the criminal defendant a broader scope of protection than the Brady rule, such as is characterized by Rule 3.8(d) of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. This paper briefly reviews and compares German and Korean laws that establish the criminal defendants’ right to discovery and their prescription of the broader prosecutorial duty to investigate and disclose exculpatory evidence. It also introduces in narrative form, for a Korean audience, the background, promulgation and development of the Brady rule, and outlines some of its serious shortcomings to explain the main reasons why the Brady rule does not function to ensure the due process rights of criminal defendants. The paper concludes with a suggestion that if scholars and lawmakers decide that further reform is needed to enhance the rights of criminal defendants in Korea, a more productive focus than the Brady rule may be elaboration of the prosecution’s broader ethical obligations or an expansion of current discovery rights to more closely model German criminal procedure.
참고문헌 (23)
- MICHAEL BOHLANDER, "PRINCIPLES OF GERMAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE" (2012)
- Bennett L. Gershman, "Litigating Brady v. Maryland: Games Prosecutors Play", CASE W. RES. L .REV, 57 (2007)
- Bennett L. Gershman, "Reflections on Brady v. Maryland", S. TEX. L. REV., 47 (2006)
- Blaise Niosi, "Architects of Justice: The Prosecutor’s Role and Resolving Whether Inadmissible Evidence is Material under the Brady Rule", FORDHAM L. REV., 83 (2014)
- Christina E. Urhausen, "California’s New Law Will Fail to Address the Larger Problem of Brady Violations", HASTINGS L. J., 69 (2018)
- Daniel S. Medwed, "Brady’s Bunch of Flaws", WASH & LEE L. REV, 67 (2010)
- David Luban, "Are Criminal Defenders Different", MICH. L. REV., 91 (1993)
- Don J. DeGabrielle, "Ethics, Justice, and Prosecution", REV. LITIG, 32 (2013)
- Dong Eon Cha, "For the True Understanding of Adversary System in Criminal Procedure", TPCP, 2 (2010)
- 신동운, "The Discovery of Criminal Evidence in South Korea", Journal of Korean Law, 13(2), pp.219~231 (2014), 아시아태평양법연구소[DOI]
- 류동훈, "공소제기 후 수사기록 열람·등사권의 실질적 보장방안에 관하여 - 검사의 법원 결정 불이행의 문제를 중심으로 -", 형사법의 신동향, (60), pp.148~180 (2018), 대검찰청[DOI]
- 김희균, "美國法上 證據開示制度의 理論과 實際:美聯邦刑事訴訟 實務를 中心으로", 저스티스, (87), pp.159~173 (2005), 한국법학원
- Niki Kuckes, "The State of Rule 3.8: Prosecutorial Ethics Reform Since Ethics 2000", GEO J. LEGAL ETHICS, 22 (2009)
- Rafael Alberto Madan, "The Sign and Seal of Justice", AVE MARIA L. REV., 7 (2008)
- Raymond LaMagna, "(Re)Constitutionalizing Confrontation: Reexamining Unavailability and the Value of Live Testimony", S. CAL. L. REV., 79 (2006)
- 한상훈, "형사소송의 구조와 검사, 피고인의 지위 - 당사자주의와 증거개시제도를 중심으로 -", 형사법연구, 21(4), pp.397~428 (2009), 한국형사법학회[DOI]
- "The Right to a Fair Trial and Our Criminal Proceedings" (2019)[URL]
- Stephanos Bibas, "Story of Brady v. Maryland: From Adversarial Gamesmanship Toward the Search for Innocence?", FAC. SCHOLARSHIP AT PA. L., 77 (2005)
- "An Odd, Almost Senseless Series of Events -Every law student knows John Brady’s name. But few know the story of the bumbling murder that ended in a landmark legal ruling-" (2018)[URL]
- William J. Brennan Jr., "The Criminal Prosecution: Sporting Event or Quest for Truth-A progress report", WASH. U. L. Q., 68 (1990)
- 이윤제, "증거개시제도 : 과거, 현재, 미래", 아주법학, 9(1), pp.71~90 (2015), 법학연구소[DOI]
- "Am. Bar Ass’n, Formal Opinion 09-454, Prosecutor’s Duty to Disclose Evidence and Information Favorable to the Defense 2" (2009)[URL]
- "Am. Bar Ass’n, Formal Opinion 467" (2014)[URL]