Verification and Confrontation： A Return to Theortical Framework of Proof Models
- 法学院－已发表论文 
模式一词天然地含有一种标准化的变形因素，而司法证明的印证模式或者质证模式并无优劣之分。不同模式所内含的不同理论目标设定需要因势利导、因案制宜而不断相互调适。当然刑事诉讼的职权主义和当事人主义的不同诉讼模式以分别侧重于印证模式和质证模式为其特征。2012年《高法解释》对质证和印证的同等强调表现了在庭审之中质证和印证可以相互衔接、结合和补充。在当前以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革背景下，印证模式与质证模式可能有针对不同的程序阶段如侦查和审判的相互衔接，又可能因为不同的案件性质如认罪或者不认罪而各有侧重。Verification model and confrontation model of judicial proof have no？ discrimi- nation in good？ and？ bad. And the word ＂model＂ naturally contains a stand- ardized deformation factors, the different connotations of the theoretical goal setting in different models need to constantly adapt to each other making the best use of the circumstances according to each case＇ s speciality. The equal emphasis on verification and confrontation in the Supreme Court＇ s Interpreta- tion 2012 manifests the verification and confrontation can mutually link, com- bine and complement each other during the trial. Under the current back- ground of trial - centered lawsuit system reform, verification mode and con- frontation mode may respectively apply to different procedural stages, such as investigation and trial so to dovetail each other, and may seperately apply to each case by different nature of such as pleading guilty or not guilty.