공판정 또는 그 외에서 한 공범자의 자백이 다른 공범자인 피고인의 공소사실과 관련하여 증거능력을 가질 수 있는가, 증거능력을 갖는다면 그 요건은 무엇인가 하는 문제, 즉 "공범자의 자백"의 증거능력 및 증명력의 문제는 이론적 또는 실무적으로 중요한 의미를 갖는다. 그리고 공범관계에 있는 공동피고인의 자백을 다른 공범자인 피고인에 대한 유죄증거로 사용할 수 있는가에 관한 논의의 핵심은, 증거법의 기본원칙인 직접심리주의와 전문증거법칙 그리고 자유심증주의와 자백배제 및 자백보강법칙간의 관계설정에 있다. 따라서 공동피고인이 공범자인 경우에는 그 진술의 증거능력을 인정함에 있어서는 이해관계의 특수성에 기한 위험성을 고려하여 보다 신중해야 할 것으로 생각된다. 그렇기 때문에 증거능력과 관련해서는 공판정의 진술보다는 공판정외의 진술의 증거능력을 인정함에 보다 엄격한 제한을 가하는 것이 타당하다.

In the korean supreme court case in question, the fact needs to be reconsidered, that the prosecutor’s record containing the statement of witness that becomes the decisive evidence to prove the guilt was left out. Especially, even though the court judged that the chance of cross-examination was provided to the declarant of the record and there was no substantial violation of procedural rules, it could have assess the circumstantial guarantees of truthworthiness. Every issue will be absorbed into the principle of free evaluation of evidence, if the admissibility of the prosecutor’s record is not considered. It is so hard to completely agree with the argument of the dissenting opinion in which in case of inconsistent statements more weight of reliability must be placed on a court testimony. It is because it is clearly in violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence to simply more rely on a court testimony in case of inconsistent statement. In light of the facts appearing in the case in question, it was possible to assess reliability of circumstances of statement separately from total consideration of reliability of evidences. Most of all, the witness’ statement before prosecutor should not have easily admitted when considering its’doubtful circumstances. Therefore, the courts, expecially the appellate court, should have closely examined the circumstances by having the persons related to the prosecutor’s interrogation take the stance. Because this process was left out, the requirement of the circumstantial guarantees of truthworthiness was not satisfied.

The criminal procedure commonly provide for the joinder of defendants, whereby two or more persons may together be prosecuted in a single trial. Assume a case in which defendants A and B have been lawfully joined for trial, but at that trial the prosecution intends to offer against A a confession by him stating, in effect, that he and B committed the crime. That right of an accused in a criminal case to confront the witnesses against him would be violated if A, by his confession, was a witness against B but could not be cross-examined. So to speak, where the powerfully incriminating judicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused sideby- side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the judge in a joint trial. In fact, it seems to me that “interlocking” bears a positively inverse relationship to devastation. A codefendant' confession will be relatively harmless if the incriminating story it tells is different from that which the defendant himself is alleged to have told, but enormously damaging if it confirms, in all essential respects, the defendant' alleged confession. It might be otherwise if the defendant were standing by his confession, in which case it could be said that the codefendant' confession does no more than support the defendant' very own case as corroborating evidence. But it might be otherwise if the defendant denies about his confession, in which case it could be said that the codefendant' confession is required as corroborating evidence that supports the defendant' very own case.

Counts in the prosecution schold be specified by crime time, place and methode. It is required not only for defendants to protect their procedual rights but also for courts to limit the scope of the trials. Illegal drug investigations were not generally supported by the crime victim or witness assistance as most of the drug-related crimes were committed in covert. Therefore, effective institution and support of a public action requires the testing for drug use as an essential element in the nation's battle against drug abuse and drug-related crime. Hair analysis for abused drugs has been recognized as a powerful tool to investigate exposure of subjects to these substances. However, it was difficult to estimate precisely the time of drug administration from the position of drug along the hair shaft. Even if the activity is to happen at some unspecified time, the court’s rejection of the case related to unspecified drug abuse may continue to pose significant problems for the integrity and impartiality of the judicial system, which is making it almost impossible for law enforcement agencies operating to bring about significant reductions in the abuse of illegal drug. Hair analysis results have been admitted as scientific evidence of drug use. The unresolved scientific issues should not obstruct the admissibility of strongly positive test results but also may not be explanatory for the entire case, even though specific questions need to be answered and the laboratory results may give strongly positive.

형사재판에서 피고인이 제출한 증거에 대한 증거능력과 증거조사에 관한 연구이다. 국민 참여재판의 출범 및 개정 형사소송법의 시행에 따라 피고인이 제출하는 증거의 중요성이 증대되고 있다. 형사재판에서 공소 제기된 범죄사실에 대한 입증책임은 어디까지나 검사에게 있다. 따라서 피고인이 제출하는 증거는 알리바이 등 공소 범죄사실에 반대되는 사실을 입증하기 위한 증거이든, 공소 범죄사실에 대한 진술증거의 신빙성을 탄핵하기 위한 탄핵증거이든, 모두 그 성질은 탄핵증거라고 보는 것이 합당하다. 그러므로 원칙적으로 증거능력을 필요로 하지 아니하고 탄핵증거로서 증거조사를 하면 족하다. 연구 대상 판례는 이러한 판단을 전제로 하고 있다.