형사소송에서 반대신문의 범위와 한계 - 영미의 이론과 운영을 중심으로 -

As on-going criminal justice reform in Korea has been showing a remarked tendency toward Anglo-American law, the role of criminal trial as a truth-finding process will be more important than ever. In Anglo-American legal system, it is widely recognized that cross-examination has been very crucial stage to find out factual truth and embody justice in criminal trial. Even one prestigious scholar depicted it the greatest legal engine ever invented. Nevertheless, excessive cross-examinations have been condemned because they could sometimes distort the actual facts and be one of the main causes of obstruction to embodiment of justice and proper criminal administration. The purpose of this paper is to make research on the scope and limits of the cross-examination in criminal court, focusing on principles and legal practices in Anglo-American law. First, the author illustrates theories and realities of the scope of the cross-examination centering around ‘the restrictive rule’, ‘the wide-open rule’ and ‘the Michigan rule’. Next, the contents and the restrictions of the leading questions are scrutinized which have been made the utmost use of in the cross-examination. ‘The collateral-finality rule’ and ‘some issues around judges’ control in the cross-examination are reviewed additionally. The theories and the legal practices around the cross-examination in the U. S. and the U. K. have been formed and shaped complicatedly and elaborately since several centuries ago. Finally, the author emphasizes that in this respect, the realities and the criticisms in Anglo-American law are considerably instructive and helpful to pave the way for more desirable criminal justice system tailored to the nation in this field.