1994 Fiscal Year Final Research Report Summary
| Project/Area Number |
04301065
|
|---|
| Research Category |
Grant-in-Aid for Co-operative Research (A)
|
| Allocation Type | Single-year Grants |
|---|
| Research Field |
刑事法学
|
|---|
| Research Institution | Tohoku University |
|---|
Principal Investigator |
ODANAKA Toshiki Tohoku Univ., Faculty of Law, Professor, 法学部, 教授 (40083307)
|
|---|
| Co-Investigator(Kenkyū-buntansha) |
MITSUDO Kageaki Setsunan Univ., Faculty of Law, Professor, 法学部, 教授 (10046930)
TAKADA Akimasa Osaka City Univ., Faculty of Law, Professor, 法学部, 教授 (50116472)
KAWASAKI Hideaki Tohoku Univ., Faculty of Law, Professor, 法学部, 教授 (30127485)
ODC Yoshitomo Kyushu Univ., Faculty of Law, Professor, 法学部, 教授 (50115440)
ASADA Kazushige Osaka City Univ., Faculty of Law, Professor, 法学部, 教授 (70067734)
|
|---|
| Project Period (FY) |
1992 – 1994
|
| Keywords | Free Evaluation of Evidence / Standard of Proof / Empirical Theorem / Reasonable Doubt / Circumstantial Evidence / Confession / Structure of Proof / in dubio pro reo |
|---|
| Research Abstract |
The project studied fact finding in criminal cases with a wide perspective in the light of recent development of post-conviction remedies such as new trial. We had advantage of practitioncrs'cooperation and reached the following results.
Firstly the project made it certain that the process of fact finding could be objectivly analyzed and made visible. We also found the basic method of the analysis. Before our research it has been belicved that fact finding was, being a subjective work of judges, impossible to analyze objectivly. The project examined courts'fact finding process in many actual cases with regard to admission of cvidence, evaluation of it, applied tests of evaluation, reasonableness of the finding, etc. As a result of this examination, it became apparent that we could make an objective analysis of the fact finding process through a comparison of the structure of the proof with that of the courts'finding process.
Secondly, the project made achievements in regard to the standard of proof and some particular methods of proof. Our research made "beyond a reasonable doubt" test, which had been quite an abstract concept, more tangible through comparative and empirical studies. While we should not depend on confession as we do now in practice, the project pointed limits of circumstantial evidence including DNA type matching.
Thirdly, the project tried new approach to fact finding process in juvenile process and in motion for a new trial.
The participants of the project have already published some parts of these achievements. The rest of them will be published with additional researches.
|
