论文部分内容阅读
修改后的刑诉法扩大了开庭审理的范围，规定二审案件中的抗诉案件必须开庭审理，上诉案件则由合议庭决定是否开庭审理。有观点认为，应当不断扩大开庭审理的范围，取消二审中的书面审方式。作者认为此观点不妥，提出书面审有其存在的合理因素和保留的基础。且一审与二审的审理方式不应相同。关于检察官出席二审法庭的职责，作者认为，由于二审审查的对象是一审的判决、裁定及审判活动，所以检察官出席二审法庭不应再负有公诉职责，而只应履行审判监督职能。相应地，检察官在二审法庭上，只对自己的主张，如抗诉理由和对上诉理由的反驳意见等，负有证明责任，对其他的事实和主张不承担证明责任。
The amended Criminal Procedure Law expanded the scope of trial and stipulated that the protest cases in the second instance must be heard in court. The appeal case is decided by the collegial bench for trial. Some people think that we should continue to expand the scope of trial, cancel the second instance of the written trial. The author thinks this viewpoint is not proper, and put forward the reasonable factors of its existence and the basis of its reservation in writing. And the trial of first instance and second instance should not be the same way. Regarding the prosecutor’s duty to attend the court of second instance, the author believes that since the object of the second instance review is the verdict, adjudication and trial activity of the first instance, the prosecutor should not assume the function of public prosecutor in attending the court of second instance, but only perform the function of trial supervision. Accordingly, the prosecutor in the court of second instance only bear the burden of proof on his or her own opinions, such as the grounds of protest and the refutation of the grounds of appeal, and assume no other burden of proof on other facts and opinions.