진술거부권 고지 없이 얻은 진술에 기초한 2차적 증거의 증거능력 = Admissibility of Secondary Evidence Obtained through Statement without Miranda Warning

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

While it is true that the exclusion of the "fruits of the poisonous tree" doctrine has been extended through the purged taint exception, inevitable discovery exception, and the independent source exception, the Supreme Court of the United States supported the doctrine largely unchallenged. However, recently the Supreme Court held that the doctrine does not apply when secondary evidence was obtained without Miranda warning, acknowledging its admissibility. In interpreting the Section 308-2 of our Criminal Procedure law, it is debatable if it’s admissible or not when a testimony was obtained as secondary evidence, without Miranda warning. About this debate our Supreme Court did not take the same opinion as the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2008도11437; the right to silence is not mere a procedural privilege - it is an integral and essential part of basic human rights guaranteed by the Constitutional law - therefore secondary evidences cannot be "always admissible"; however if the testimony is voluntary enough even without Miranda warning the evidence can be exceptionally admissible. This is remarkable in that it provided quite specific guidelines with the admissibility of secondary evidences.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• Ⅰ. 들어가며
• Ⅱ. 대법원 2009. 3. 12. 선고 2008도11437 판결
• Ⅲ. 미국 판례상 진술거부권 고지 없이 얻은 진술에 기초한 2차적 증거의 증거능력
• Ⅳ. 우리 형사소송법상 진술거부권 고지 없이 얻은 진술에 기초한 2차적 증거의 증거능력
• Ⅴ. 결론

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 심희기, "형사소송의 이론과 실무" 사단법인 한국형사소송법학회 2 (2): 2010

2 이상현, "진술거부권 불고지의 진술로 획득한 2차적 증거의 증거능력: 미국과 우리 법상 독수과실론에 관한 대법원 판례들의 비교분석" 중앙법학회 11 (11): 249-284, 2009

3 안성수, "진술거부권 불고지로 인한 위법수집증거배제와 그 불복방법" 한국형사판례연구회 17 : 467-517, 2009

4 이재상, "신형사소송법 제2판" 박영사 547-, 2009

5 신동운, "신형사소송법" 법문사 1057-, 2008

6 조국, "독수과실의 원리" 한국형사판례연구회 17 : 448-466, 2009

7 대검찰청, "공판중심주의 형사소송법 개정백서" 534-, 2005