人们长期认为,英美法系的法官在法庭上一般是消极、被动地听审,却不能积极调查证据。事实上,英美两国的立法与审判实践却表明:法官可以询问证人、传唤证人出庭,或进行“庭外勘验”。尤其在没有陪审团参与的审判中,法官能更加主动地调查证据。这说明,英美两国的刑事法官并非完全消极、被动,特别是当庭审主体变为一元的职业法官时,他因对案件事实最终负责,而更加具有调查证据的天然冲动。由此可见,中国刑事法官在庭审中无需亦不能塑造成纯粹的仲裁者角色,而应保留适当的且受到法律合理规制的证据调查权。 It has long been held that judges in Anglo-American legal systems generally hear negatively and passively in court but can not actively investigate the evidence. In fact, the legislation and trial practice in the United States and the United States have shown that judges can interrogate witnesses, summon witnesses to attend court, or conduct “out-of-court expeditions.” In particular, in jury trials without a jury, the judge can take the initiative to investigate the evidence. This shows that criminal judges in Britain and the United States are not completely passive and passive. In particular, when the subject of the trial turns into a one-dollar professional judge, he is ultimately responsible for the facts of the case and thus has the natural impulse to investigate evidence. It can be seen from this that Chinese criminal judges do not need to and can not shape a pure arbiter role in the court trial. Instead, they should retain appropriate evidence-based investigation powers that are legally and reasonably regulated.