Relationship between Hearsay Rule and Trial by Jury in US Evidentiary Rules - Management and Improvement of Hearsay Rule in Korea’s Citizen Participation Trials -
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The formation of the Anglo-American hearsay rule is closely related to the role of the jury, and an important goal of its introduction into the Anglo-American trials was to prevent errors in the jury's assessment of the facts by blocking questionable hearsay evidence that categorically lacks credibility. The hearsay rule under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act was clearly inspired by Anglo-American evidence law, and is also closely aligned with the jury system. However, no antecedent jury system existed in the Korean legal system prior to the adoption of the hearsay rule under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which mainly focused on inclusions that recognized the admissibility of documentary evidence prepared by investigation agencies. However, the citizen participation trial by jury needs reform to encompass greater trial-centered fact finding than a trial by an inquisitorial judge. Therefore, it is necessary to limit the scope of exceptions to the hearsay rule, which was originally favorable to the admissibility of the protocols prepared by investigation agencies. Thus, the issue of implementing the principle of immediacy and orality in trials is continuing to emerge as the new focus of reform in the traditionally inquisitorial system, augmenting amendments introduced in 2007 that were designed to encourage expeditious and open trial-centeredness, including discovery rules, and a more visibly adversarial system. In Korea, we should narrow the scope of the exceptions to the hearsay rule in the jury trial, and come up with operational measures to allow jurors to make a judgment of the facts through oral and direct evidence received in court.
Abstract
The formation of the Anglo-American hearsay rule is closely related to the role of the jury, and an important goal of its introduction into the Anglo-American trials was to prevent errors in the jury's assessment of the facts by blocking questionable hearsay evidence that categorically lacks credibility. The hearsay rule under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act was clearly inspired by Anglo-American evidence law, and is also closely aligned with the jury system. However, no antecedent jury system existed in the Korean legal system prior to the adoption of the hearsay rule under the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which mainly focused on inclusions that recognized the admissibility of documentary evidence prepared by investigation agencies. However, the citizen participation trial by jury needs reform to encompass greater trial-centered fact finding than a trial by an inquisitorial judge. Therefore, it is necessary to limit the scope of exceptions to the hearsay rule, which was originally favorable to the admissibility of the protocols prepared by investigation agencies. Thus, the issue of implementing the principle of immediacy and orality in trials is continuing to emerge as the new focus of reform in the traditionally inquisitorial system, augmenting amendments introduced in 2007 that were designed to encourage expeditious and open trial-centeredness, including discovery rules, and a more visibly adversarial system. In Korea, we should narrow the scope of the exceptions to the hearsay rule in the jury trial, and come up with operational measures to allow jurors to make a judgment of the facts through oral and direct evidence received in court.
참고문헌 (44)
- Alfred C. Oppler, "Legal Reform in Occupied Japan: A Participant Looks Back" (2015), Princeton Legacy Library
- Andrew Porwancher, "John Henry Wigmore and the Rules of Evidence: The Hidden Origins of Modern Law" (2016), University of Missouri Press
- David Johnson, "Japanese Way of Justice" (2001), Oxford University Press
- John Hostettler, "Fighting for Justice: The History and Origins of Adversary Trial" (2006), Waterside Press
- Jon R. Waltz, "Evidence, Cases and Materials" (2009), Foundation Press
- Lee, Eun-Mo, (2018), Parkyoung-Sa
- Lee, Jae-Sang, (2017), Parkyoung-Sa
- Matthew Lippman, "Criminal Evidence" (2016), SAGE Publications
- Werner Beulke, (2018), C. F. Müller
- Wilhelm Röhl, "History of Law in Japan Since 1868" (2005), Brill
- Ben Trachtenberg, "Confronting Coventurers: Coconspirator Hearsay, Sir Walter Raleigh, and the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause", Fla. L. Rev, 64, pp.1669~ (2012)
- Cat MacQueen, "Special Measures and the Principle of Orality in the Scots Criminal Trial: Ensuring Fairness to the Accused", Edinburgh Student L. Rev, 3, pp.3~ (2018)
- Charles T. McCormick, "Law and the Future: Evidence", Nw. U. L. Rev, 51, pp.218~ (1957)
- Comment, "The Hearsay Rule and the Right to Confrontation: States' Leeway in Formulating Evidentiary Rules", Fordham L. Rev, 40, pp.595~ (1972)
- David H. Taylor, "Hearsay and the Right of Confrontation in American Trials by Jury", 법학논총, 18(2), pp.3~38 (2011), 법학연구원
- Edmund M. Morgan, "The Jury and the Exclusionary Rules of Evidence", U. Chicago L. Rev, 4, pp.247~ (1936)
- Frederick Schauer, "On the Supposed Jury-Dependence of Evidence Law", U. Pa. L. Rev, 155, pp.165~ (2006)
- Friedman, Richard D, "Adjusting to Crawford: High Court Decision Restores Confrontation Clause Protection", Crim. Just, 19, pp.4~ (2005)
- Gary Goodpaster, "On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial", J. Crim. L. & Criminology, 78, pp.118~ (1988)
- George F. James, "The Contribution of Wigmore to the Law of Evidence", U. Chicago L. Rev, 8, pp.78~ (1940)
- Gordon Van Kessel, "A Summary of Mirjan R. Damaska's Evidence Law Adrift", Hastings L.J, 49, pp.359~ (1998)
- Han, Sung-Hoon, "A Study on the Revitalization of the People's Participation Trial", Hanyang Law Journal, 27 (2016)
- Howard Meyers, "Revisions of the Criminal Code of Japan during the Occupation", Wash. L. Rev. & St. B.J, 25, pp.104~ (1950)
- John H. Langbein, "Historical Foundation of the Law of Evidence : A View from the Ryder Sources", Colum. L. Rev, 96, pp.1168~ (1996)
- John W. Strong, "McCormick on Evidence(edition 5)" (1999), West Group
- Jonh, H. Wigmore, "The History of the Hearsay Rule", Harv. L. Rev, 17, pp.437~ (1904)
- Junho Kim, "The Challenges and Outlook of Trial by Jury in Korea", Journal of Korean Law, 8, pp.455~475 (2009)
- Mirjan Damaška, "Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study", U. of Pa. L. Rev, 121, pp.506~ (1973)
- Mirjan Damaška, "Of Hearsay and Its Analogues", Minn. L. Rev, 76, pp.425~ (1992)
- Mirjan Damaška, "The jury and the law of evidence: real and imagined interconnections", Law, Probability and Risk, 5, pp.255~ (2006)
- Note, "The Theoretical Foundation of the Hearsay Rules", Harv. L. Rev, 93, pp.1786~ (1980)
- Paul W. Grimm, "The Confrontation Clause and the Hearsay Rule: What Hearsay Exceptions Are Testimonial?", University of Baltimore Law Forum, 40(2) (2010)
- Philip L. Reichel, "Japan’s Lay Judge System: A Summary of Its Development, Evaluation, and Current Status", International Criminal Justice Review, 25(3) (2015)
- Randolph N. Jonakait, "The Origins of the Confrontation Clause: An Alternative History", Rutgers L.J, 27, pp.77~ (1995)
- Randolph N. Jonakait, "The Rise of the American Adversary System: America before England", Widener Law Review, 14, pp.323~
- Richard B. Appleton, "Reforms in Japanese Criminal Procedure under Allied Occupation", Wash. L. Rev, 24 (1949)
- Roger C. Park, "An Outsider's View of Common Law Evidence", Mich. L. Rev, 96, pp.1486~ (1998)
- Ryan Y. Park, "The Globalizing Jury Trial: Lessons and Insights from Korea", The American Journal of Comparative Law, 58(3) (2010)
- 심희기, "미군정법령 제176호 형사소송법의 개정", 법사학연구, (16), pp.117~165 (1995), 한국법사학회
- Stephan Landsman, "The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England", Cornell L. Rev, 75, pp.496~ (1990)
- Thomas P. Gallanis, "The Rise of Modern Evidence Law", Iowa L. Rev, 84, pp.499~ (1999)
- Tom S. Xu, "Confrontation and the Law of Evidence: Can the Language Conduit Theory Survive in the Wake of Crawford?", Vand. L. Rev, 67, pp.1498~ (2014)
- 春日勉, "일본의 전문법칙의 예외적용에 관한 실무현상과 과제 - 검찰관 면전조서를 중심으로 -", 법학논총, 18(3), pp.519~537 (2011), 법학연구원
- Valerie Hans, "Reflections on the Korean Jury Trial", Journal of Korean Law, 14(1), pp.81~115 (2014), 아시아태평양법연구소[DOI]