2019-08-012024-05-17https://scholars.lib.ntu.edu.tw/handle/123456789/694899摘要：本計畫主要希望探討刑事法院對於證據評價應有的規範、界限與實務運作。證據評價是刑事審判的核心，也是審判者的主要任務。當代多數法律系統，都一方面給予審判者某種程度的自由裁量空間，但另一方面也出於各種不同目的，給予審判者裁 量的限制。這種自由裁量和裁量限制的互動，構築了刑事法院運作的特色。在我國，由於對法院應如何評價證據的法律規範密度低，以致於法官雖然有較大的自由裁量空間（包括對證據能力和證明力的裁量），但也因此造成法院對於類似案件、類 似證據的評價差別過大，使得一般人民和專業法律人都認為「司法像月亮，初一十五不一樣」，因此衍生成我國社會不信任司法系統的危機。本計畫希望能釐清我國刑事訴訟制度對於證據評價應有的規範、瞭解實務目前的運作現況、給予立法規範與司法實務運作需要的具體建議，從而有助於改善司法不信任的危機。<br> Abstract: The research project focuses on how criminal courts should evaluate evidence, including its appropriate norms, limits, and current practices. Evaluation of evidence is the core of criminal trials and the major task of judges and juries. Most contemporary legal systems grant judges and juries discretionary power to evaluate evidence on one hand, and also restrain this discretionary power on the other. The interaction between discretionary power and its restraints forms the major features of trial procedures in criminal courts. In Taiwan, since there are few legal rules regulating how judges should evaluate a certain kind of evidence, it leaves judges great discretion to make decisions on admissibility and probative value of evidence. It also results in numerous discrepancies between the decisions of one judge and another, which makes ordinary people and legal professionals both criticize courts for making inconsistent decisions and has exacerbated Taiwan’s judicial crisis. One goal of the research project is to postulate theoretically appropriate regulations for evidence evaluation in Taiwan’s criminal trial courts. A second goal is to explore how criminal courts evaluate evidence currently. The final goal is to suggest reforms that will fit both evidence law theory and practical needs of our courts. In doing so, I hope this project can be part of the solution to the judicial crisis in Taiwan.關聯性證據法自由判斷裁量權relevancyevidence lawDiscretiondiscretionary powerfree proof