论文部分内容阅读
美国历史上最著名的大法官小奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯曾经在《法律的道路》这篇不朽的演讲稿中对未来的法律人谆谆教诲道:“如果法律人受到的训练使他们习惯上更为明确和清楚地思考公共政策,他们所制定的规则必须恰当地符合公共政策,那么,他们会不时对于他们如今信心十足的东西感到迟疑,并且明白他们对于争议颇大和常常是棘手的问题实际上偏向某一方。”霍姆斯的告诫在其逝后似乎得到了一定程度的实现,这种对公共利益的政策考量不仅贯穿于美国法学教育的过程之中,而且同样贯穿于法官的司法裁判过程中。在证据法领域,美国联邦证据规则第407条所规范的“不能以事后补救措施来证明其先前行为具有过失的规则”就生动地体现了美国法官对证据相关性的公共政策考量。
The most famous justice in the history of the United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes, taught lawyers of the future in the immortal speech “The Way of Law,” saying: “If the lawyers are trained to make them It is customary to think more clearly and clearly about public policies whose rules must be properly fit public policy, and from time to time they will hesitate about what they are confident nowadays, and understand that they are quite controversial and often tricky The problem actually defers to one side. ”“ Holmes’s warning seems to have been achieved to a certain degree after its death. This policy of public interest not only permeates the process of American legal education, but also runs through the judge Judicial referee process. In the field of evidence law, the ”failure to excuse the aftereffective remedy to prove the negligence of a previous act" stipulated in Article 407 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence vividly reflects the public policy considerations of U.S. judges on evidence relevance.