직업법관의 형사재판에서 당사자주의 구현에 관한 미국 논의의 시사점
Implication of Discussions on the Adversariness in Bench Trial of U.S.A.
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
적어도 50여 년 전부터 영미의 형사사법체계, 특히 미국의 형사재판에서 배심재판보다는 직업법관에 의한 재판의 수가 압도적으로 다수임에도 불구하고, 배심제의 당사자주의를 근간으로 한 증거법규정 및 절차진행이 그대로 유지되고 있다는 점에서, 피고인에 대한 보호가 실질적으로 이루어지기 위해서는 적정한 대책이 마련되어야 한다는 목소리가 끊이지 않았다. 이러한 주장들은 직업법관의 형사재판에서도 피고인에 대한 당사자주의적 보호가 어느 정도 보장되기 위해서는 공판준비절차에 참여한 법관과 공판절차를 주재하는 법관을 달리하고, 증거법상의 제한들이 엄격하게 지켜지고, 직업법관의 판결에 대한 항소심의 개입 및 심리범위를 확대하고, 피고인과 변호인의 법관의 심증형성에 개입할 수 있는 방어권을 실질적으로 보장하고, 충분하고 합리적인 근거가 제시된 판결문을 작성하도록 하고, 무엇보다 변론종결 후 법관의 잠정적인 판결을 공개(개시)하는 제도를 도입하는 것이 그 대책이라고 주장하고 있다. 주지하다시피 헌법재판소나 대법원은 우리의 형사소송구조를 당사자주의로 보고 있고, 국민참여재판을 도입하고는 있으나, 실질적으로 직업법관에 의한 형사재판이 원칙이라는 점에서 과연 미국에서 제기되는 이러한 문제는 우리에게 발생하지 않는 것인지, 미국의 논의와 주장들이 우리들의 논의에 어떠한 시사를 주는 것은 아닌지를 검토해보는 것은 우리의 형사재판의 현실을 돌아보는데 의미가 있을 것이다.
Abstract
According to the stance of Korean constitutional court and supreme court, the Korean criminal trial is based on the adversarial principles. But the criminal trials in korea in principle consist of the nonjury setting. The jury trial in criminal case is used in some cases, but the verdict of jury can’t carry legal binding force. And the most cases in criminal setting are conducted without a jury. In recent years, in some common-law jurisdiction, especially in America, the relevant attention of some legal scholars have been devoted to the rules of procedure that are conducted without a jury. The reason for that was that when the jury is withdrawn from the common-law trial, i.e. in adversary system, the accused suffers an adversarial deficit. They have suggested that some of the traditional protections should be recreated in the nonjury context by enforcing evidence rules in bench trial more formally and having pretrial hearings on the exclusion of evidence before a judge other than the ultimate fact-finder. And they also have urged that a basic inquisitorial control, especially the requirement of reasoned judgement, should be incorporated into all nonjury criminal trial. Above all, finally, some scholar call for something new. They propose that judge should deliver a provisional statement of guilt that remains open to challenge and debate, before the conclusion of trial. This article has introduced these suggestions to the Korean scholars, and has shown the implications for our criminal trial. To enhance the protection of the accused, this paper argues whether the preparation of a trial, i.e. preparatory proceeding in criminal cases is appropriate for the nonjury trial, and so-called provisional statement of guilt is suited to korean criminal trial etc..
참고문헌 (25)
- A. Leo Levin, "The Exclusionary Rules in NonJury Criminal Cases", U. Pa. L. Rev., 119, pp.905~ (1971)
- Abraham S. Goldstein, "Reflections on Two Models: Inquisitorial Themes in American Criminal Procedure", Stan. L. Rev., 26, pp.1009~ (1974)
- Albert W. Alschuler, "Implementing the Criminal Defendant's Right to Trial: Alternatives to the Plea Bargaining System", U. Chi. L. Rev., 50, pp.931~ (1983)
- "Anonymous Letter to the Harvard Law Review", Harv. L. Rev., 36, pp.193~ (1922)
- Cyril Glasser, "Civil Procedure and the Lawyers-The Adversary System and the Decline of the Orality Principle", Mod. L. Rev., 56, pp.307~ (1993)
- Dale W. Broeder, "The Functions of the Jury: Fact or Fictions?", U. Chi. L. Rev., 21, pp.386~ (1954)
- David W. Neubauer, "America’s Courts and the Criminal Justice System,6th Ed.", pp.1999, West
- Donald G. Gifford, "Meaningful Reform of Plea Bargaining: The Control of Prosecutorial Discretion", U. Ill. L. Rev., 37 (1983)
- Edward Griew, "Summing up the Law", Crim. L. Rev., pp.768~ (1989)
- Eliahu Harnon, "Reform Movements in Criminal Procedure and the Protection of Human Rights", Int'l Rev. Penal L., 64, pp.1177~ (1992)
- John D. Jackson, "Judge Without Jury: Diplock Trials in the Adversary System" (1995)
- John H. Langbein, "The Criminal Trial Before the Lawyers", U. Chi. L. Rev., 45, pp.263~ (1978)
- Joshua Dressler, "Crimininal Procedure, Volume 1: Investigation, 5th Ed" (2010), LexisNexis
- Kenneth Culp Davis, "An Approach to Rules of Evidence for Non Jury Cases", A.B.A.J., 50, pp.723~ (1964)
- Leonard H. Hoffmann, "Changing Perspectives on Civil Litigation", Mod. L. Rev., 56, pp.297~ (1993)
- Levin, "The Exclusionary Rules in NonJury Criminal Cases", U. Pa. L. Rev., 119, pp.905~ (1971)
- Marcus Stone, "The Decline of Jury Trial and the Law of Evidence", Res Judicatae, 3, pp.144~ (1947)
- Mirjan R. Damaska, "Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study", U. Pa. L. Rev., 121, pp.507~ (1973)
- Obert P. Charrow, "Making Legal Language Understandable: A Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions", Colum. L. Rev., 79, pp.1306~ (1979)
- Russel L. Weaver, "Criminal Procedure, Case, Problems & Exercises", pp.989~ (2001), West
- Sean Doran, "Rethinking Adversariness in Nonjury Criminal Trials", Am. J. Crim. L., 23, pp.1~ (1995)
- Stephen J. Schulhofer, "Is Plea Bargaining Inevitable?", Harv. L. Rev, 97, pp.1037~ (1984)
- "Thirty-Ninth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure, III. Trial, RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL", Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc., 39, pp.550~ (2010)
- Welsh S. White, "A Proposal for the Reform of the Plea Bargaining Process", U. Pa. L. Rev., 119, pp.439~ (1971)
- William L. Twining, "Identification and Misidentification in Legal Processes: Redefining the Problem, in Evaluationing Witness Evidence: Recent Psychological Research and New Perspectives", pp.255~ (1983)