“证据标准”一词，常被以检察机关为代表的实务部门所使用，且多出现于刑事诉讼的语境之下。近年来，随着“审判中心诉讼制度改革”、“司法责任制”的贯彻、落实，制定“证据标准”、“证据标准指引”等形式的规范性法律文件，更成为公安、司法机关的着力方向。在“智慧司法”的新形势下，构建数字化、程式化的“证据标准”，甚至成为司法改革顶层设计层面惯常运用的话语体系。然而，相较于“证据标准”语词在司法实践舞台的活跃态势，学界的反应、回馈并不同步。在论及“证据标准”相关文献当中，大多数论者仍在与证明标准等同抑或具有非实质性差别的层面理解和使用证据标准一词。即使有学者超越证明标准核心要义而使用证据标准，也仅是为了突出学术个性，而并未对何为证据标准进行基本界定。 证据标准不应是证明标准的同义替换。一方面，证明标准已是具有通说和成熟理论体系的范畴，无需以不同的语词替换证明标准的表述；另一方面，两概念核心语素存在“证据”与“证明”之别，两者虽然相关，但也显见不同之处。理论研究应作为实践的先导，在“证据标准”语词被广泛使用，且被置于“错案预防”、“审判中心”，乃至当下“智慧司法”等政策情势的背景下，我们首先应对“证据标准”进行系统性地理论研究。本文便是对“证据标准”基本理论的初步探索。当前，由于绝大多数的“证据标准”实践与研究均聚焦于刑事诉讼，且准确运用证据、认定案件事实在刑事语境下更具迫切需求，因此，本文在论及“证据标准”时，主要出发并落脚于刑事司法实践。除导论外，本文共分为六章，涉及证据标准的概念解析、构成解析、历史溯源、现状析评、构建示例及未来管窥六方面内容。 本文第一章基于对规范性法律文件及学术研究中“证据标准”一词使用情况的分析，得出：“证据标准”一词时常出现在我国司法实践之中；其常被视为“证明标准”的同义语词，而被实务工作者抑或学者替换使用或混合使用。但是，通过对“法律”文本的规范分析及对既有文献的综合分析，笔者发现：在大致经历了与证明标准无意识混用——有意识表面区别——核心要义增加三个阶段演变后，“证据标准”的概念初步独立。由此，笔者尝试将证据标准界定为：认定案件事实所依证据应当满足的要求及应当达到的程度。具体内容包括：有关认定案件事实应当证成哪些事实要素，需要哪些证据，以及这些证据在不同属性层面应满足什么要求及达到何种程度的准则。从形式上看，它是“证据确实、充分”这一刑事证明标准部分表述的具体化；但其落脚于证据、内容具体、详尽及对实践明确回应等特性，均使其显著独立于证明标准。 本文第二章对证据标准的应然结构进行了多维、全面地解析。在理论上，证据标准体系的构成元素包括：证据架构标准、证据采纳标准和证据采信标准。证据标准的类案构建得以在空间上将前述三层面证据标准统筹，这是因为用以构成类案证据标准中证据基本架构的每一个证据元素均需满足证据的采纳标准与采信标准。在时间逻辑上，证据采纳标准与采信标准为前后接续的两个阶段，而证据架构标准既可以作为证据标准适用的出发点也能作为落脚点，这取决于运用证据标准所评断的证据属性，或者所适用的诉讼阶段。在对证据标准构成进行空间、时间维度的理论解析后，本章还在实践层面考察了证据标准的构成，也即回答了实践中到底需要怎样的证据标准问题。这一实践回应采逆向思维，也即对20起典型错案证据分析偏误进行归纳、总结，得出刑事错案在证据采纳、采信及整体证据架构层面均存在显见问题，由此反向印证证据标准理论解构的合理性。 本文第三章对证据标准进行了历史溯源。将运用证据证明案件事实的全过程标准化，以为司法提供明确、具体指引的观点，并非“凭空想象”。追求客观、具体、确定性知识的理性倾向有其历史根源。法定证据时代就具有关于证据形式、证明力的标准规定，并已呈现基于不同类型案件，运用不同证据的类案证据标准思维。威格莫尔证明科学探索，虽不主张程式化的司法证明，但却对单个证据的真实性、证明力，以及多个证据证明净效力的判断进行规范性探索，其以一种“软标准”的模式规范和指引证据运用者的活动。新证据学派的概率论者，则将追求客观、具体、确定性知识的理性倾向发挥到了极致，旨在将运用证据进行证明的全过程概率化、运算化，但经历多年探索并未有实质性突破。通过上述考察，本文指出：法定证据制度失败的罪魁祸首乃赋予证据规则不可动摇的强制力；威格莫尔证明科学基于经验总结证据运用规律的做法具有借鉴意义；证据分析的概率化与司法实践存在难以逾越的鸿沟。也就是说，证据标准历史溯源为当前证据标准探索和构建指明：证据标准应具参考性而非强制性；应体现为经验性而非数理性。 本文第四章对我国九个“证据标准”样本进行了分析，发现各样本在制定目的、构建路径、架构模式及体例内容方面均具有趋同性。证据标准构建，意在对证据收集、固定、审查、判断、运用的各个环节进行明确指引，以提高证据分析、事实认定的准确性，最终提升司法裁判的质量。既有“证据标准”大都以类案的探索为进路，但亦有以同类证据为基础，构建证据标准的探索。类案证据标准的构建，不仅搭建了全案证据的基本架构，而且还涉及证据元素采纳和采信的要求与准则。但是，证据标准中关于证据采纳的规定和要求占主要篇幅，而关于证据采信的准则虽常有涉及，但明显粗陋。综观现有“证据标准”，其已构建起证据与待证事实间、程序法与实体法间的联动，并能为类案的证据实践提供更详尽、更明确的指引。需要指出的是，现有证据标准仍具有显见不足：就待证事实要素一端，证据标准对于要件要素的解构不全面、不彻底、不科学；而在证据运用规律一端，则存在与待证事实要素不匹配、采信规律粗疏等弊病。 本文第五章对类案证据标准及同类证据标准的构建进行了示例。证据标准实然状态与应然解析间的明显差距，使本文不得不回应，与应然解析相契合的理想型证据标准能否构建的问题。实务和理论之于类案证据标准的探索显示：证据采信标准是理想型证据标准构建的重点与难点。当前选取类案的复杂程度，相较于现阶段证据运用分析的精细化程度，明显过载。因此，在探索类案证据标准构建的进程中，应遵循“先易后难”的进路。醉酒型危险驾驶罪构成要件要素的简明性、定罪基本证据的稳定性与规律性，以及各证据属性易于判明性，使其成为可先行构建理想型类案证据标准的先导。本文即以醉酒型危险驾驶罪为例，展现了类案证据标准的可行范例。我国具有针对不同种类证据分别规定审查、判断规则的司法解释体例，因此，亦可基于证据的不同种类，制定相应的证据标准，与类案证据标准相同，某类证据的采信标准同为重点与难点。DNA证据与统计学天然的、深入的关联，使其最有可能率先建立起客观的，乃至量化的证据采信标准，本文也对DNA证据采信标准，进行了探讨与示例。 本文第六章对证据标准的未来进行了管窥。在当前“智慧司法”语境下， “证据标准”常被提及，由此，证据标准的未来可能会与大数据、人工智能相结合。现阶段运用智能办案辅助系统实现证据标准的统一，实为机器智能对人造标准的学习与运行。本文主张，大数据、人工智能技术不能仅局限于标准的机械运行范畴，还要为证据标准的创造乃至完善提供助力。这并不是主张大数据智能之于证据标准的自动学习与构建，而是通过大数据思维与技术，对大量司法实践样本中的证据运用规律进行分析、提炼，在通过大数据分析获得普适性、科学性的证据运用经验后，经法律专家和技术专家的合作，将大数据分析结果转化为可供司法人员理解和适用的证据标准。也即，大数据、人工智能技术在证据标准的探索与构建进路中应发挥“工具论”作用，而非“主体论”作用。 关键词：证据标准；证据分析；事实认定；理论研究；实践探索

 The term “standard of evidence” is often used by the judicial practice department represented by procuratorates, and often appears in the context of criminal procedures. In recent years, with the implementation of the trial centered legal system reformation and the judicial responsibility system, the formulation of normative legal documents in the form of “evidence standard” and “evidence standard guidance” has become the focus of police and judicial offices. Under the new situation of “judicial intelligence”, the construction of digital and stylized “evidence standard” has even become a common discourse system at the top-level design of judicial reform. However, compared with the active situation of “evidence standard” in the stage of judicial practice, the response and feedback of the academic circles are not synchronous. In the literature on “evidence standard”, most of the commentators are still understanding and using the term “evidence standard” at the level of equating or non-substantive differences with the standard of proof. Even if some scholars use the standard of evidence beyond the core meaning of the standard of proof, it is only to highlight the academic personality, but not to define what is the standard of evidence. The standard of evidence should not be a synonymous substitution of the standard of proof. On the one hand, the standard of proof is a category with consensus and mature theoretical system, and there is no need to replace the expression of the standard of proof with different words; on the other hand, the core morphemes of the two concepts are different from each other in “evidence” and “proof”, although they are related, they also have obvious differences. Theoretical research should be the forerunner of practice. Under the background that the term “standard of evidence” is widely used and placed in the policy situation of “prevention of wrongful cases”, “trial center” and even “judicial intelligence “, we should first carry out systematic theoretical research on “standard of evidence”. This dissertation is a preliminary exploration of the basic theory of “evidence standard”. At present, the vast majority of the practice and research of the “standard of evidence” are focused on criminal procedures, and it is more urgent to accurately find the facts of the case in the criminal context. Therefore, when discussing the “standard of evidence”, this dissertation mainly starts from and settles in criminal justice practice.Besides introduction, the main body of this dissertation is divided into six chapters, involving six aspects of the concept analysis, composition analysis, historical tracing, current situation review, construction examples and future prospects of the evidence standard. Chapter one is based on the analysis of the usage of the word “standard of evidence” in normative legal documents and academic research. It is concluded that the word “standard of evidence”often occurs in legal practices in China and does not originate from the translation of English words. Whether in Chinese or English context, there exists the substitution of “standard of evidence” and “standard of proof” as synonyms or the mixed usage of these two words. However, in most cases, practitioners or scholars in China use the term “standard of evidence” beyond the scope of the standard of proof and give it special meaning. In addition, I have reviewed the viewpoints about the definition of “evidence standard” in the existing research results, and pointed out that after three stages of evolution, namely, unconscious mixing with the “standard of proof” , conscious superficial distinction, surpassing the core meaning, the meaning of “evidence standard” has been enriched and clarified, and is significantly different from the “standard of proof”. On this basis, we try to define the standard of evidence as the requirements and the degree to which the evidence on which the facts of a case are determined should meet. Specific contents include: what factumprobandumshould be proved, what evidence is needed, and what requirements should be met by these evidence at different attribute.From the formal point of view, it is the concretization of the part expression of the criminalstandard of proof that “evidence is true and sufficient”; but it is based on the characteristics of evidence, concrete content, detailed and clear response to judicial practice, which makes it significantly independent of the standard of proof. Chapter two makes a multi-dimensional and comprehensive analysis of the structure of the standard of evidence. In theory, the elements of evidence standard system include: evidence framework standard, evidence admissibility standard and evidence evaluation standard. The above three levels of evidence standards can be integrated spatially in the construction of evidence standards in a certain class of cases. This is because each element of evidence used to constitute the basic framework of evidence in the evidence standards of class cases must first meet the standards of admission and evaluation of evidence. For the temporal logic, evidence admissibility standard and evaluation standard are two successive stages, and evidence framework standard can be used as both the starting point and the ending of the application of evidence standard, which needs to consider the attributes and litigation stages of the application of evidence standard. After the theoretical analysis of the space and time dimensions of the standard of evidence, this chapter also examines the composition of the standard of evidence at the practical level, that is to say, it answers the question of what kind of standard of evidence is needed in practice. This practice responds by adopting reverse thinking, that is, summarizing the analysis errors of evidence in 20 typical wrongful cases, and concludes that there are obvious problems in evidence admission, evaluation and overall evidence framework in criminal wrongful cases, thus reversely verifying the rationality of the deconstruction of evidence standard above. Chapter three traces the historical origin of the evidence standard. It is not imaginative to standardize the whole process of using evidence to prove the facts of a case so as to provide clear and specific guidance for the law enforcement agency and judicial authority. The rational tendency to pursue objective, concrete and deterministic knowledge has its historical roots. In the era of legal evidence, there are standard provisions on the form and weight of evidence, and the thought of using different types of evidence according to the certain class of cases has been presented. Wigmore′s scientific exploration of proof does not advocate stylized judicial proof, but makes a normative exploration on the authenticity and proof of single evidence and the judgement of the net effect of multiple evidence proof. It regulates and guides the activities of evidence users in a “soft standard” mode. The probabilists of the new evidence scholarship have brought the rational tendency of pursuing objective, concrete and deterministic knowledge to the extreme, aiming at probabilizing and calculating the whole process of using evidence to prove, but there has been no substantial breakthrough after years of exploration. Through the above investigation, this paper points out that the main culprit of the failure of the legal evidence system is the unshakable force entrusted to the rules of evidence; Wigmore proves that the practice of summing up the rules of evidence application based on experience is of referential significance; there is an insurmountable gap between probabilistic evidence analysis and judicial practice. That is to say, the historical tracing of the evidence standard gives lessons to the current exploration and construction of the evidence standard: the evidence standard should be referential rather than compulsory, and should be embodied in empirical rather than mathematical rationality. Chapter four analyses nine samples of “evidence standard” in China, and finds that all samples have commonness in formulating purposes, building paths, framework model and standard content. The construction of evidence standards aims to give clear guidance to the various stages of evidence collection, fixation, examination, judgment and application, so as to improve the accuracy of evidence analysis and fact finding, and ultimately improve the quality of judicial decisions. The existing “evidence standards” are mostly based on the exploration of a certain class of cases, but there are also explorations to build evidence standards on the basis of a certain kind of evidence. The construction of the evidence standard for a certain class cases not only establishes the basic framework of the whole evidence, but also involves the requirements and standards for the admissibility and evaluation of evidence elements. However, the rules and requirements of admissibility of evidence in the standard of evidence are the main space, and the standard of evaluation of evidence are often involved, but obviously crude. Looking at the existing “evidence standards”, it has constructed the linkage between evidence and facts to be proved, procedural law and substantive law, and can provide more detailed and clear guidance for the evidence practice of certain kinds of cases. It should be pointed out that the existing evidence standards still have obvious shortcomings: under the perspective of fact, the deconstruction of the elements of the facts to be proved is not comprehensive, thorough and scientific; as for the evidence , there are also shortcomings , such as mismatch with the elements of the facts to be proved, and rough rules of evaluation and estimation. The chapter five gives examples of the construction of the standards of evidence for a class of cases and the standard of evidence for a kind of evidence. The obvious gap between the actual state of the evidence standard and the ought state makes this dissertation have to respond to the question whether the ideal evidence standard conforming to the ought analysis can be constructed. The exploration of evidence standards in similar cases from practice and theory shows that the standard of evidence evaluation is the key and difficult point in the construction of ideal evidence standards. Currently, the complexity of the selected cases is obviously overloaded compared with the fineness of the current evidence analysis. Therefore, in the process of exploring the construction of evidence standards for a class of cases, we should follow the “easy before difficult” approach. The conciseness of the constitutive elements of drunk driving crime, the stability and regularity of the basic evidence for conviction, and the easy clarity of the attributes of the evidence make it a pioneer to construct the standard of evidence. Taking the crime of drunk driving as an example, this dissertation shows a feasible example of the standard of evidence in similar cases. Our country has the judicial interpretation style which stipulates the rules of examination and evaluation for different kinds of evidence. Therefore, we can also formulate corresponding evidence standards based on different types of evidence. The standards of evidence for a certain type of evidence are the same as those for a class of cases, and the evaluation criteria for a certain type of evidence are the same emphasis and difficulty. The natural and in-depth correlation between DNA evidence and statistics makes it most likely to take the lead in establishing objective and even quantitative standards of evaluation. This paper also discusses and illustrates the standards of DNA evidence evaluation. Chapter six looks forward to the future of evidence standards. In the current context of “judicial intelligence”, the “evidence standard” is often mentioned. Therefore, the future of the evidence standard may be combined with big data and artificial intelligence. At present, the application of intelligent case handling assistant system to achieve the unification of evidence standards is actually the learning and operation of man made standards by machine intelligence. This dissertation argues that big data and AI technology should not only be limited to the scope of standard operation, but also provide assistance for the creation and improvement of evidence standards. This is not to advocate that big data intelligence should be applied to the automatic learning and construction of evidence standards, but to analyze and refine the rules of evidence application in a large number of judicial practice samples through big data thinking and technology. After obtaining universal and scientific evidence application experience through big data analysis, the results of big data analysis can be transformed into available evidence standard through the cooperation of legal experts and technical experts. In this way, evidence standards can be understood and used by judicial personnel. That is to say, big data and artificial intelligence technology should play the role of “instrumentalism” rather than “subjectivity” in the exploration and construction of evidence standards. Key Words: Standard of Evidence, Evidence Analysis, Fact-finding, Theoretical Research, Practical Exploration