—评格林斯坦《事实认定：直接证据的迷思》

陈 盛

（西南政法大学应用法学院，重庆 401120）

【摘 要】 直接证据与间接证据是证据法学关于证据的一种重要分类，它对于确立证据应用规则以及司法实践中的证据思维都具有重要意义。然而，直接证据与间接证据区分的标准是什么、证据“直接”或“间接”的实质为何、证明实践中是否存在直接证据等涉及两类证据区分的基本问题，在证据法学界争议不断，至今未有定论。格林斯坦教授的《事实认定：直接证据的迷思》一文，系统总结并批判了美国传统证据法学研究领域支持此一证据分类的观点。作者着重探索证据所反映的事实以及司法裁判所认定事实的实质，由此否定了直接证据的存在；同时还批判了传统证据法学认为直接证据优于间接证据的观点。格林斯坦教授的 观点虽值得商榷，但其文章的论证对我们进一步厘清证据分类，把握证据间的关系仍不乏启发意义。

【关键词】直接证据；间接证据；证据分类；格林斯坦

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2017）05-0517-09

Can direct evidence be separable from circumstantial evidence——A review on determining facts: The myth of direct evidence by Richard K. Greenstein. Chen Sheng, Applied Law School, Southwest University of Political Science and Law Chongqing 401120.

【Abstract】The classification between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence is important in evidence law,which is of great significance for establishing the application rule of evidence and the evidentiary thinking mode in judicial practice. However, there is no final conclusion on fundamental problems about the classification of evidence, such as the division between the direct and circumstantial evidence, the substance of direct or circumstantial evidence and whether the direct evidence practically exists. In the essay of Determining Facts: the Myth of Direct Evidence, Richard K. Greenstein summarized and criticized the viewpoints upholding the division between the direct and circumstantial evidence in the traditional mainstream of American academic circle of evidence law. With deeper analysis of the “fact” that evidence reflects and the substance of facts determined by adjudication, Greenstein denied the existence of direct evidence. Moreover,Greenstein criticized the view that direct evidence is superior than circumstantial evidence in probative value. Although the viewpoint of Greenstein is arguable, it is instructive for us in clarifying the classification of evidence and further understanding the interrelationship between direct and circumstantial evidence.

【Key Words】 Direct evidence, Circumstantial evidence, Evidence classification, Richard K. Greenstein