美國最高法院： 「被告被捕前的沈默」可以作為審判者判斷的依據
美國最高法院判決：
「被告被捕前的沈默」可以作為審判者判斷其陳述可信度的依據(PRE-ARREST SILENCE) Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980)
「被告被捕前的沈默」可以作為審判者判斷其陳述可信度的依據(PRE-ARREST SILENCE) Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U.S. 231 (1980)
被告於犯案後2週自首，
被告於審理時主張係因正當防衛而殺人，
檢察官於論告時表示，如果被告確實因正當防衛而殺人，依常理應該會立刻向警方或他人提及、說明。
陪審團判決被告成立過失致死罪。
被告上訴主張，違反被告緘默權保障。
被告於審理時主張係因正當防衛而殺人，
檢察官於論告時表示，如果被告確實因正當防衛而殺人，依常理應該會立刻向警方或他人提及、說明。
陪審團判決被告成立過失致死罪。
被告上訴主張，違反被告緘默權保障。
大法官表示，證據法則允許審判者依常理判斷前後證詞之一致性，並彈劾證詞之可信度。被告當初並非在檢警強迫下而保持沈默，被告被捕前保持沈默，可作為評價之依據之一。駁回上訴。
PS.被告在審理程序中作證，我國無此制度。
PS.被告在審理程序中作證，我國無此制度。
Each jurisdiction remains free to formulate evidentiary rules defining the situations in which silence is viewed as more probative than prejudicial. We merely conclude that the use of prearrest silence to impeach a defendant's credibility does not violate the Constitution.
J.Stevens concurring:
The fact that a citizen has a constitutional right to remain silent when he is questioned has no bearing on the probative significance of his silence before he has any contact with the police. We need not hold that every citizen has a duty to report every infraction of law that he witnesses in order to justify the drawing of a reasonable inference from silence in a situation in which the ordinary citizen would normally speak out.
The fact that a citizen has a constitutional right to remain silent when he is questioned has no bearing on the probative significance of his silence before he has any contact with the police. We need not hold that every citizen has a duty to report every infraction of law that he witnesses in order to justify the drawing of a reasonable inference from silence in a situation in which the ordinary citizen would normally speak out.
留言
張貼留言