On Perfection Of Cross-examination Institutions In Civil Procedure

Cross-examination, the prerequisite of evidence affirmation, is one of the important parts which cannot be neglected in evidence institutions and civil procedure. Only through cross-examination can all evidence be authenticated by the judge and become the premise of the judgement. Regulations on cross-examination of civil procedure law and legal interpretations are over generalized and lack of serviceability, researches on which are still not enough theoretically and practically. Since the construction of our cross-examination institutions in civil procedure is still in its primary stage, discussion on how to perfect our cross-examination institutions and sort out the interior system of legal process and to combine properly the cross-examination institutions with other civil proceedings, so as to reach the goal of justice and dual process, to vindicate the interests of the litigant parties, are very valuable and deserved to be done.The article includes three parts:The concept of cross-examination, its components, and its value preference are the major contents of the first part. By quoting different discussions, the author tries to give a clear definition of the concept of the cross-examination, and to give a detailed analysis of its components, based on which to make clear the subject, the object, the content and ways of cross-examination. After that , the author discuss the value preference and reaches the conclusion that the fundamental value of the cross-examination lies on the realization of due process.In the second part, the author discusses the mode and the rules of cross-examination in a comparative way, which focuses on the comparative study on core contents of cross-examination institutions, inner mechanisms, and development history in common law system and continental law system. Meanwhile, foundation on construction and perfection of cross-examination institutions in Chinese civil law has been forged by analyzing the present defects and through theoretical and practical inspections. In the third part, the author gives some suggestions on how to perfect our cross-examination institutions based on above discussions. The suggestions include regulations of evidence exchange, of giving testimony in the law court, of guestioning, of admissibility of evidence, preparation proceedings in primary stage and permeating institutions of the judge. The guiding line of these suggestions either emphasizes the subjective status of the litigant parties in the course of the cross examination activities, or convicts the necessity of proper guidance and regulating of the judge, which aims well functioning of the cross-examination institutions so as to assure the impartial trial and vindicate the benefits of the litigant parties.