英美法系案例：他人书写字条的确认规则
孙杨被禁赛八年的仲裁结果出台后，引起了很多同行对交叉盘问技巧的兴趣。还有同行根据一些“英美交叉盘问的中文资料”，撰写了交叉盘问技巧的文章。激烈的英美抗辩式主要发生在交叉盘问证人程序（普通法的证人包括接受交叉盘问的被告人），该程序一般分为三个阶段，主问（申请方引证examination-in-chief）、盘问（对方诘问cross-examination）和复问（异议的矫正re-examination）。在第一个阶段，即引证阶段，主要是由申请方对证人提问（但也会出现对方就证人资格和记忆提醒工具等方面问题的诘问）。在此阶段，申请方和其代理人通过提问证人引导出支持其主张的事实的版本。对于律师来讲，在引证阶段主要的是要适度的把握引导性提问（Leading questions）。否则，要么因构成诱导性提问，造成引导出的事实被法官排除；要么不能引导出自己需要的证词，特别是在证人有敌意或者不友好的情况下。当然，还有预设封闭对方诘问的策略。如何适度，除了一些规则外，主要是看法官尺度的把握，就像足球裁判一样。而对于证人来讲，经常需要“记忆提示”（Refreshing the memory），就是在中国法庭也不例外。仅就“记忆提示”问题，我正在拜读的一本牛津《现代证据法》教材中，就有二十多页的论述。现介绍一个“他人书写的字条、证人能否作为记忆提示工具使用”的案例：
In R v Kelsey,H,a witness called for the prosecution,was allowed to refresh his memory as to the registration number of a car from a note which he had dictated to a police officer.The officer had read his note back aloud and H had confirmed that it was correct.Although H had seen the officer making the note,he had not read it himself.The officer gave evidence that the note used in court was the one that the witness saw him make.The Court of Appeal held that verification could be either visual or aural,the important matter being that the witness satisfies himself,while the matters are fresh in his mind,(i)that a record has been made;and(ii)that it is accurate.However,where a witness dictates a note to another,hears it read back,and confirms its accuracy without reading it himself,another witness must be called to prove that the note used in court is the one that was dictated and read back.The officer in the instant case having given evidence to that effect,Kelsey’s appeal was dismissed.
在R v Kelsey一案中，控方申请了一个名字为H的证人出庭，在就一个汽车的号码问题作证时，该证人被允许通过“一个自己口述由警察书写的字条”刷新记忆。在警察大声宣读了字条后，H确认是正确的。这个警察还作证说，该在法庭出示的字条是这名证人看着他书写的。上诉法院就此裁定：对记录的核查既可以通过看、也可以通过听，重要的是这名证人在记忆刷新时他自己对（1）记录的制作；和（2）记录的准确性是满意的。不过，如果一个证人在听了他人宣读了其口述他人书写的字条并对内容的准确性予以确认，但他自己并没有阅读时，那么这个书写的人就必须出庭作证，证明这个在法庭出现的字条是按照这个证人的口述书写的，并且当时给他宣读了。由于这个警官出庭对此作证，Kelsey的上诉被驳回。
需要说明的是，这个案件的判例原则仅仅是有关“一个证人口述由他人书写的字条”能否作为记忆提示工具使用的问题，并不能就此判定该证人的证词是真实的。如果是虚假的，能否被法庭排除，就需要反方律师施展诘问的功夫了。（孙杨案其律师的引证情况尚未见报道）
小知识：Leading questions引导性提问（见牛津《现代证据法》第165页）
A party calling a witness and seeking to elicit evidence supporting his case often faces a witness who,although favourable,is not particularly forthcoming.The party calling him may be tempted to suggest to him what he wants him to say.In examination-in-chief,however,the general rule is that a witness may not be asked leading questions.Evidence elicited by leading questions is not inadmissible but the weight to be attached to it may be reduced.Leading questions are usually those so framed as to suggest the answer sought.Thus it would be a leading question if counsel for the prosecution,seeking to establish an assault,were to ask the victim,‘Did X hit you in the face with his fist?’The proper course would be to ask,‘Did X do anything to you?’and,if the witness then gives evidence of having been hit,to ask the questions‘Where did X hit you?’and‘How did X hit you?’Questions are also leading if so framed as to assume the existence of facts yet to be established.If evidence has yet to be given of the assault,it would be improper,for example,to ask,‘What were you doing immediately before X hit you?’The examples given are reasonably straightforward,but in practice the avoidance of leading questions often requires considerable skill and experience.An over-strict adherence to the rule against leading questions would render examination-in-chief extremely difficult.The question‘Did X do anything to you?’,even if it does not suggest that X hit the witness,suggests that X did something,whereas in fact he might have been asleep at the relevant time.‘And what happened next?’is a solution often resorted to.However,the judge,and counsel for the other side,will not always demand strict adherence to the rule,and for
good reason:‘“leading”is a relative,not an absolute term’.
申请方的目的是期望通过证人作证得到支持其诉求的证据，但，这并不是轻而易举的。申请方往往试图通过诱导的方式得到其想要的东西，但诱导提问的方式一般是不被允许的。同时，以诱导提问的方式引出的证据可能不被采用，或者其依附的证明价值将被削弱。诱导提问是指以设计“框架”的方式引导证人回答问题。如果一个检察官为了得到被告人袭击的证据以下列方式询问受害人，那么就属于诱导性提问。例如，“X是否用拳头打击你的脸部？”而适当的方式是，“X是否对你做了什么？”当证人回答其被打后，接着再发问，“X打了你什么地方？”和“X是怎么打你的？”以假定某个事实存在的框架提问也属于诱导，如“在X就要打击你的时候，你正做干什么？”，这个以预设袭击已经存在的方式提问是不正确的。虽然前面这些例子是相当简单明了的，但在实践中要避免诱导式提问需要相当的技巧和经验。过于严格的诱导提问规则将导致引证极度困难。“X是否对你做了什么？”这一提问即使没有暗示X袭击了证人，但也暗示了X对证人做了什么，而实际上这个人在这个时候也许正在睡觉。“那么以后发生了什么呢？”则是一个可以采取的问话方式。不过，法官、对方的律师并不总是强求严格的规则，究其原因：“引导”并不是一个绝对封闭的术语，也是指关联性。
To the general prohibition on leading questions there are frequently recurring‘exceptions’.A witness may be asked leading questions on formal and introductory matters,such as his name,address,and occupation.Leading questions are also permissible on facts which are not in dispute,and counsel for the other side may well indicate,in the case of any witness,those matters on which he has no objection to such questions being put.Leading questions may also be put to a witness called by a party who has been granted leave to treat him as hostile.
Leading questions may be put in cross-examination.
对这些概况性的引导发问禁止原则也时常有例外，证人也可以被基于正式的事实介绍的引导方式提问，如他的名字、住址、职业等。基于没有争议事实之上的引导性提问也是被允许的，可以预见，以此方式对任何证人的提问，对方的律师很难提出反对。在引证阶段，一方当事人也可以申请传唤另一个有敌意的被释放的人作为证人接受盘问。诱导性提问也可能出现在盘问（对方诘问）阶段。
更多精彩内容