—对刑事法官庭审职权的探讨

李章仙

（中国政法大学刑事司法学院，北京 100088）

【摘 要】刑事庭审实质化的改革应当破除对法官职权的误解，不能将庭审中法官职权的行使直接等同于对诉讼参与人合法权利的侵害。追求客观真实的司法传统要求法官依职权对程序进行控制和管理，兼顾诉讼并行价值离不开法官对庭审节奏的把握，实现控辩双方的实质平等也需要法官摆脱绝对消极的裁判者角色。当然，庭审实质化进程中法官职权的行使也应恪守诉讼的司法形式性，以“看得见的正义”树立裁判者权威，藉司法能动搭筑与控辩双方理性沟通的桥梁。

【关键词】庭审实质化；法官职权；实质真实；查明真相

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2017）05-0536-11

Absolutely passive or moderately active?—A discussion on judges’ judicial power in criminal trials. (Li Zhangxian,China University of Political Science and Law, Peking, China)

【Abstract】In the criminal trial essentialism reform, the misunderstanding of judges’ judicial power should be wept out. Judges’ exercise of judicial power does not directly count as an infringement of the parties’ lawful rights. The traditional judicial value of seeking material truth calls for judges’ exercise of judicial power in procedural control and administration. The collateral procedural values requires judges exercise judicial power to control the proceeding rhythm. To realize “equality of arms” to both parties, the judge should not act as an absolute passive referee. In the realization of trial essentialism, criminal trial judges should observe the judicial formality, establish their own authorities through “visible justice”, and act positively to bridge rational communication between prosecution and defense.

【Key Words】 Trial essentialism, Judicial power, Material truth, Truth-finding