论文部分内容阅读
美国法的传闻证据规则中庞杂的例外并非杂乱无章,对其从不同角度的分类便于研究。“瞬间所为之自然陈述”作为其中一类,包括当场印象、刺激下之表达、临终前之死因陈述。在进入传闻证据例外的视野前,有必要对其进行传闻与非传闻、证言性陈述与非证言性陈述的辨正。以此类证据为视角重新审视传闻的理论基础,更凸显其程序性价值。2004年Crawford案后传闻的例外与美国宪法修正案中对质条款的适用关系亟待厘定,证言性陈述原则上须严格适用对质条款,非证言性陈述仍可适用传闻例外。
The heyday of the hearsay rules in American law is not cluttered, and its classification from different angles is easy to study. “Natural statements ” as one of the categories, including the impressions on the spot, the expression of stimulation, the statement of the cause of death before death. Before entering the horizons of hearsay evidence, it is necessary to discern rumors and non-rumors, testimonies and non-statements. From the perspective of such evidence, we can reexamine the theoretical foundation of rumors and even highlight its procedural value. The hearsay of Crawford in 2004 and the application of the qualifying clauses in the amendment to the U.S. constitution are to be determined urgently. The testimony must in principle be subject to the strict application of the confidentiality clause, and non-antecedent statements may still apply the hearsay exception.