然而，当初为了证明她存在的独立程序和完全不同于审判程序的证据、证明标准，依然延续下来并转变为四个显著的诉讼法学遗产：首先，容易被省略掉的“公共恶名”催生了欧洲普通法中的“不被强迫自证其罪特权”；其次，“公共恶名”羽化为欧洲大陆的检察官制度，在英国则是大陪审团制度；再次，在审前程序合法性判断、逮捕标准上，她就是当今英美法系“正当事由”的前身；最后，与此密切相关的第四个结晶就是，逮捕、审前程序合法性的判断并不以后来的审判结果为转移，质言之，即使审判结果表明被告人并非真正的罪犯，但是，只要审前程序阶段“正当事由”存在，那么警察侦查行为当属合法。
【作者简介】
佀化强，中国人民大学法学院，博士研究生。
【注释】 Richard M. Fraher, “Conviction According to Conscience: The Medieval Jurists’s Debate Concerning Judicial Discretion and the Law of Proof”, 7 Law and history Review (1989), pp.23-88.
See note 1
Ferrari, Practica, f.liiiir, Licet Heli, Corpus Iurus Canonici, col 760-61, Laura Ikins Stern, supra note 43, p.203.
Thomas Kuehn, “Fama as a Legal Status in Renaissance Florence”, in Thelma Fenster and Daniel Lord Smail (eds.) Fama: The Politics of Talk and Reputation in Medieval Europe, 2003, p.30.
从辛纳斯对某些教会法学家的嘲弄中，我们可以看出，与没有死刑的教会司法相比，世俗的重罪司法更迫切需要一个原告存在。这就不难理解公共检察官为什么在世俗司法中诞生，而教会法庭则依赖独立的前置程序或者法官临时助手来充当起诉人。
“Dicas ergo, quod sufficit probare notorium per talem modum, qui facit semiplenam probationem. Unde si fama de hoc laborat, sufficiat probare famam laborantem, quantum ad hoc, ut ad inquisitionem procedat,” C. IX. 2.7, no.5, quoted by W. Ullmann, supra note 19, p.13. 这段译文我结合了厄曼教授与马海峰同学提供的拉丁文翻译。
Baldus, loc. Cil., no. 2, quoted by W. Ullmann, “Some Medieval Principles of Criminal Procedure”, The Judicial Review (1947).
Quoted and translated by R. H. Helmholz, “Origins of the Privilege against Self-Incrimination: the Role of the European IUS COMMUNE”, 65 New York Law Review (1990), p.962.
Sextus, regula 73, translated and quoted by W. Ullmann, “Some Medieval Principles of Criminal Procedure”, The Judicial Review (1947).
Lecture on C.IX.2.7, no. 5, fol, 537 verso., quoted by Ullmann, id.
“De jure canonico posset fieri (scil. Nuntiatio) per omnes, qui bono zelo et praemissa caritativa monitione moventur. Sed de jure nostro non reperitur, quod posit fieri nisi per quosdam officials, qui criminibus investigandis praeponuntur”, Lecture on C.IX.2.7, no.2, quoted by Ullmann, “Some Medieval Principles of Criminal Procedure”, The Judicial Review (1947).
“nisi aliquid praecedat, quod aperiat viam inquisition…aliter processus esset ipso jure nullum, esiamsi delictum fuisset deinde plene probatum”, Lecture on C.IX.2.7, qu. 5, no. 3, fol. 109, quoted by Ullmann, id.
See note 12.
See note 12.
“Breviter veritas est ista, quod de jure civili regulariter non admittitur nec procedit inquisition, nisi de crimine notorio”, C. IX. 2.4, no.37, fol.209., quoted by W. Ullmann, id.
See note 12.
. Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Reference to France, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1913, at 95.
The Coutumes de Beauvaisis of Philippe de Beaumanoir, f.1710.
See note 18, f.917. 如无专门说明，着重号为笔者所加。
See note 18, f.919.
Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Reference to France, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1913,p.104.
Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Reference to France, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1913, p.125.
Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Reference to France, Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1913, p.117.
See Laura Ikins Stern, The Criminal Law System of Medieval and Renaissance Florence, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994, pp.24-25, 203.
See note 24, p.204.
See note 24, p.207.
See note 24, p.25.
See note 24, p.24.
See F.W.Maitland, “Why the History of English Law is Not Written”, in H.A.L. Fisher (ed.) The Collected Papers of Frederic William Maitland, Cambridge, 1911, pp.480-488; S.F.C. 密尔松：《普通法的历史基础》，李显冬、高翔、刘智慧等译，中国大百科全书出版社1999年版； 卡内冈：《英国普通法的诞生》，李红海译，中国政法大学出版社2003年版。
See R.H. Helmholz, The Ius Commune in England: Four Studies, Oxford, 2001; R.H. Helmholz, “Continental Law and Common Law: Historical Strangers or Companions?”, Duke L J, 1990, p.1207.
See R.H. Helmholz, “Magna Carta and the Ius Commune”, 66 The University of Chicago Law Review (1999), pp.297-371.
See Maurizio Lupoi, The Origins of the European Legal Order, London: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
See Naomi D. Hurnard, “The Jury of Presentment and the Assize of Clarendon”, 56 The English Historical Review (1941), pp.374-410
34] See Roger D. Groot, “The Jury of Presentment before 1215”, 26 The American Journal of Legal History (1982), pp.1-24.
Charles L. Wells, “The Origin of the Petty Jury”, 27 L. Q. Review (1911), p.347.
上述中文译文，笔者结合了Charles L. Wells与耶鲁大学法学院、Fordham 大学中世纪研究中心提供的翻译文本，参见Charles L. Wells, id., p.347. See
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/assizecl.asp;
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aclarendon.html.
See
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/medieval/assizecl.asp;
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/aclarendon.html>.
R. H. Helmholz, “The Early History of the Grand Jury and the Canon law” , 50 The University of Chicago Law Review (1983), pp.613-627. (here p.618, note27).
Glanvill, quoted by Roger D. Groot, supra note 33.
R. H. Helmholz, “The Early History of the Grand Jury and the Canon law” , 50 The University of Chicago Law Review (1983), pp.613-627. (here p.618, note27).
H. Bracton, On the Law and Customs of England, trans and ed. S. E. Thorne, 4 voles (Cambridge, Mass., 1968), 2:403, quoted by Barrara J. Shapiro, “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Probable Cause”: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence, University of California Press,1991, p.49.
See J. S. Cockburn and Thomas A. Green, Twelve Good Men and True, The Criminal Trial jury in England, 1200—1800, Princeton University Press, 1988; Thomas A. Green, “The jury and the English law of Homicide, 1200-1600”, 74 Michigan Law Review (1976), pp.413-499; J.G. Bellamy, The Criminal Trial in Later Medieval England: Felony before the Courts from Edward I to the Sixteenth Century, Sutton Publishing, 1988.
J. S. Cockburn and Thomas A. Green, see not 42, p.53.
James Q. Whitman , The Origins of Reasonable Doubt, Yale University Press, 2008, p.133.
纠问制中的传闻规则、刑讯逼供制度功能，可能引起争议；笔者将专文揭示13-17世纪欧洲大陆世俗纠问制中“判决先于证据，以证人代替法官、以证人证言代替司法判决”的特殊设计，解释传闻规则的功能。
See James Q. Whitman , The Origins of Reasonable Doubt, Yale University Press, 2008, pp.91-104, pp.125-138.
【参考文献】
1. A. Esmein, A History of Continental Criminal Procedure with Special Reference to France，Boston: Little, Brown, and Com-pany, 1913.
2.Baker, A complete History of the Inquisition in Portugal，Spain，Italy，Westminster, 1736.
3. James Q. Whitman, The Origins of Reasonable Doubt，Yale University Press, 2008.
4.Mathias Schmoeckel, “Proof, Procedure, and Evidence”，in John Witte, Jr.，Frank S. Alexander (eds.），Christianity andLaw：An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, 2008.
5. Mike Macnair, “Vicinage and the Antecedents of the Jury”，17 Law and History Review (1999)
6.Laura Ikins Stem, “Public Fame in the Fifteenth Century”，44 The American Journal of Legal History (2000)．
7. Ian Forrest, The Detection of Heresy in Late Medieval England，Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005．
8. Leonard W. Levy，Origins of the F f h Amendment：The Right of Against Self-Incrimination , Oxford University Press, 1968.
9.J. Duncan M. Derrett, “The Trial of Sir Thomas More”，79 The English History Review，(1964)．
10.R. H. Helmholz, “Magna Carta and the ins commune”，66 The University of Chicago Law Review (1999)．
11.Maurizio Lupoi，The Origins of the European Legal Order, London: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
12.Naomi D. Humard, “The Jury of Presentment and the Assize of Clarendon”，56 The Erglish Historical Review (1941)．
12. Roger D. Groot, “The Jury of Presentment before 1215”，26 The American Journal of Legal History (1982)．
14.Thomas A. Green, “The jury and the English law of Homicide, 1200-1600”，74 Michigan Law Review（1976)．
15.〔美〕哈罗德?J?伯尔曼：《法律与革命》，贺卫方等译，中国大百科全书出版社1993年版。
16.密尔松：《普通法的历史基础》，李显冬、高翔等译，中国大百科全书出版社1999年版。
