莊杏茹

Hsing Ju Chuang

無罪推定、超越合理懷疑、審前整理程序、舉證責任、積極抗辯、防禦、證據評價

Presumption of Innocence, Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Preparatory Procedure, Burden of Proof, Counterargument, Affirmative Defense, Evidence Evaluation

國民與法官共組審判庭聽審案件，於動態的刑事審判程序，協力重建實體，檢驗證據、詮釋法律而為證據評價，調和經驗法則與論理法則之適用於認事用法，同求發見真實，對實施國民參與刑事審判制度，別具深意。更不能忽略法庭活動以攻擊防禦斷疑生信之程序功能，審判庭聽聞證人證言，檢驗證據，於兩造攻防之間獲致心證，評議審理形成之爭點，檢驗直接證據與間接證據之關聯性，審酌檢方舉證與辯方抗辯的合理與可信性，循法定表決原則，作成判決，確認刑罰權存否及其範圍，實生有司法可視化之效果，強化公平審判與正當程序，無障決疑定獄。並以判決妥為說理，使法理與爭點相互涵攝，可受社會公評、得為司法審查，充實評議作成可視性判決的重要內涵，建立司法問責之信賴基礎，決疑慎獄之至意，當是國民參與刑事審判，充分衡酌訴訟舉證與法律見解遇合相稱形成事實確信，所負之制度性任務。

In dynamic criminal proceedings, cases are heard by mixed tribunals composed of both citizens and judges who comprehensively examine the testimonies and evidence presented to reconstruct the facts. These mixed tribunals collaborate to examine evidence, applying both logical rules and practical reasoning to find facts, interpret the law, and provide legal explanations throughout the trial proceedings. In the practicial context of decision-making by the mixed tribunal, the adversarial function of criminal trials, in which the prosecution and defense challenge each other’s arguments, is designed to establish proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Citizens and judges on a mixed tribunal are expected to reach a decision by applying their own reasoning to the evidence and testimony presented in court. This process plays a pivotal role in determining whether to accept proof amid the arguments or counterarguments presented, particularly when evaluating a defendant’s failure to testify. Legal and evidential concerns are central to deliberations, and these issues are extensively discussed among tribunal members. These discussions address the relevance and weight of both direct and indirect evidence. Assessment of the arguments and counterarguments on which the defendant relies enables the mixed tribunal to evaluate credibility and determine the most appropriate sentence during a criminal proceeding. Mixed tribunals go beyond redefining the visibility of judicial proceedings, with a scope that includes confirmation of penalties through legitimate voting rules based on the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, thereby enhancing fairness and due process in trials. Decisions made by mixed tribunals embody the principle of judicial transparency. Mixed tribunals address specific legal concerns through a combination of legal reasoning and an evaluation of reasonable and reliable evidence. Each aspect of legal reasoning and judgment is examined within a framework of propositions and subsumption, ensuring public scrutiny and judicial review. Citizen participation in criminal trials ensures full consideration of the reliability and credibility of the provided evidence. This deliberative process enhances the visibility of decisions regarding the weight of proof. As a key systemic task, the collaborative effort of mixed tribunals emphasizes the identification of guilt and appropriate penalties, which is achieved by adhering to the burden-of-proof standards and striving to establish substantive truth. Overall, public perceptions of legitimacy are integral because they shape confidence in the legal system and ensure judiciary accountability.