【作者】 朱琳；

【导师】 颜飞； 孙琳；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法学， 2018， 硕士

【摘要】 所谓合并审判是就系属于法院中的二个以上单一性案件,合并由一个法官以同一诉讼程序审理的制度。实际上即是对各系属中的案件,合并确认有无国家刑罚权。合并审判对于提高诉讼效率,查清案件事实真相具有积极意义。一方面,在大陆地区的法律规定中并未形成完整的规范,而另一方面在司法实践中刑事案件合并与分离审理方式层出不穷,存在很多不当合并与不当分离的情形亟待规范。从比较的视野来看,我国台湾地区已经建立了较为完整的合并审判制度,在满足办理刑事案件实践需要的同时,也努力构建了对公民基本权利的法律保护。探讨我国台湾地区合并审判制度不仅具有重要的理论意义,其法治化的经验及教训对我国大陆地区相关制度的构建更是具有极大的参考价值。本文除引言、结语外共由四部分组成,总计字数约33000字。第一部分,对合并审判制度进行简要概述。我国大陆地区没有明确提出过合并审判的概念,因此本文将先界定合并审判的概念,厘清与合并管辖、分离审判相关概念的关系。其次,对合并审判应坚持的原则进行阐述,并对合并审判的正当性和局限性进行分析。第二部分,梳理我国台湾地区合并审判制度的内容。台湾地区通过前后两次修法,完善了合并审判制度。传统概念上的合并审判为相牵连案件的合并,而后新增了合并、分离调查证据或辩论程序,这在法律上增加了分离审判。因而有必要沿修法历程,对二次内容进行比较分析,在此基础上提出台湾地区关于合并审判制度的特点:一是制度规范维度广泛,合并与分离模式并行;二是注重权力与权利的价值平衡,被告享有程序选择权。当然,相对应的也存在两方面的问题:第一,在制度价值选择上,合并审判制度偏向于权力维护,具体体现在分离程序的规定不全面,强度不彻底,仅为客观分离中的程序分离,而且对被告人权利保障不够。第二,从实践操作上,由于分离标准不明确,缺少可操作性。第三部分,分析我国大陆地区现行合并审判存在的问题。大陆地区虽没有明确提出合并审判制度,但是在《刑事诉讼法》中有规定相关案件的合并审理,这也为借鉴台湾地区的经验提供可行性。通过实践调研,笔者发现大陆地区现存在以下三个方面的问题:其一,合并审判与分离审理被滥用,发生不当合并与不当分离;其二,分案标准任意性大,易发生权力寻租;其三,被告人的质证权缺失且缺少救济。第四部分,结合台湾地区的经验和教训,对完善大陆地区的合并审判提供借鉴。可从四个方面进行完善:第一,通过明确合并案件关联性以及分离审理的酌定法定理由,以此理清案件审理适用条件,解决合案与分案适用混乱的难题;第二,制定分案的划分标准,夯实案件分类的制度基础;第三,加强对被告人的质证权的保障和救济;第四,建立配套协调机制,尤其是证据规则,以此促进分案制度的实施。更多还原

【Abstract】 The so-called merger trial is a case in which two or more single cases are involved in a court,and a system in which the judges use the same proceedings is merged.In fact,it is the case in each department and the merger confirms whether there is a national penalty.Merger trials have positive significance for improving the efficiency of lawsuits and clarifying the facts of the cases.On the one hand,there is no complete norm in the legal provisions of the mainland.On the other hand,in the judicial practice,there are endless criminal mergers and separations.There are many cases of improper mergers and improper separations that need to be regulated.From the perspective of comparison,China’s Taiwan region has established a relatively complete merger judicature system.While satisfying the need for handling criminal cases,it has also endeavored to establish legal protection for citizens’ basic rights.It is of great theoretical significance to explore the Taiwanese regional merger judgment system.Its rule-of-law experience and lessons have great reference value for the construction of relevant systems in China’s mainland.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,this article consists of four parts,with a total of about 33,000 words.The first part provides a brief overview of the joint trial system.The concept of joint trials has not been explicitly put forward in China’s mainland.Therefore,this article will first define the concept of joint trials and clarify the relationship with the concepts of merger jurisdiction and separation of trials.Secondly,it elaborates on the principles that should be adhered to in the joint trial and analyzes the legitimacy and limitations of the combined trial.The second part is to sort out the content of the merger trial system in Taiwan.Before and after the revision of the law in the Taiwan region,the merger review system was perfected twice.The traditional concept of the merger trial is the merger of the implicated cases,followed by the addition of mergers,separation of investigation evidence or deliberation procedures,which adds legal separation to the trial.Therefore,it is necessary to compare and analyze the secondary contents along the course of revision.Based on this,the author puts forward the characteristics of Taiwan’s merger judgment system.First,it has a wide range of institutional norms and parallels the merger and separation model.Second,it focuses on the values of power and rights.Balance,the defendant has the right to choose the procedure.Of course,the corresponding problems also exist in two aspects: First,in the choice of institutional values,the combined trial system is biased toward the maintenance of power,which is embodied in the fact that the provisions of the separation procedure are not comprehensive,and the intensity is not complete.It is only an objective separation procedure.Separation,and the defendant’s participation in sexual rights is not enough.Second,from the practical operation,due to the lack of clear separation standards,lack of operability.The third part analyzes the problem of the current merger trial in China’s mainland.Although there is no explicit proposal for a joint trial system in the mainland,the "Criminal Procedure Law" stipulates the merger of related cases,which also provides the feasibility of drawing lessons from Taiwan’s experience.Through practical investigations,the author finds that there are three problems in the mainland region: First,the merger trial and separation trial are misused,improper merger and improper separation occur;Second,the divisional criteria are arbitrarily large and prone to rent-seeking for power.Third,the defendant’s right to cross-examination is lacking and lacks remedies.The fourth part,based on the experience and lessons of Taiwan,provides reference for the improvement of the merger trial in the mainland.It can be improved from four aspects: first,clarify the relevance of the case and separate legal reasons for the trial,so as to clarify the conditions for the application of the case,and to solve the problem of confusion between the case and the division;Divisional criteria for division of cases,to consolidate the institutional basis for the classification of cases;third,to strengthen the protection and relief of the defendant’s cross-examination rights;Fourth,to establish a supporting coordination mechanism,especially the rules of evidence,in order to promote the implementation of the divisional system.更多还原