|
|
- Written by Salomone Donghwa Shin / International Legal Research Institute. www.ilri.co.kr
Appearance Bond of Witness
Form Number: AO 99
Category: Pretrial Release and Appearance Bond Forms
Effective onDecember 1, 2011
2023년 5월 12일 현재 미국 법원에서 사용중인 형사소송 Appearance Bond of Witness 서식 입니다.
미국 법률 시스템에서 증인출석보증금 an appearance bond of witness 는 증인 법정 출석을 위해 요구할 수 있는 일종의 보증금 a type of bond 으로, 증인이 법정에 출두하지 않거나 증인의 위치를 찾기 어렵겠다고 우려될 때 사용 It is commonly used when there is a concern that a witness may not willingly appear in court or may be difficult to locate 됩니다.
증인출석보증금 an appearance bond of witness 는 증인보증금 witness bond 또는 소환보증금 subpoena bond 이라고도 하는데, 법원절차 in court proceedings 에서 증인의출석을보장하는데사용되는법적도구 a legal instrument used to ensure the presence of a witness 로, 증인이자발적증언이어렵없거나증언할의지가없어강제로법정에출두해야할때 when a witness is unable or unwilling to testify voluntarily and needs to be compelled to appear in court 에 필요합니다.
증인이소환장을받고출석하지않거나증언을거부할우려가있을때 when a witness is subpoenaed to testify but there is a concern that they may not show up or may refuse to testify, 법원은 증인에게 출석보증금 to post an appearance bond 을 요구할 수 있으며, 일부 주에는 증인보증금규율 govern witness bonds 특정법령 specific statutes 도 있고, 다른 주는 관습법원칙 may rely on common law principles 또는 법원규칙 court rules 을 따르기도 합니다.
이 보증금은 증인이명령에따라법원에출석할것이라는재정적보증 a financial guarantee that the witness will appear in court as ordered 역할을 하므로, 만일증인이출석하지않으면,보증금은몰수될수있으며,법원은그자금을증인부재
로인해발생하는손해를충당하는데사용 If the witness fails to appear, the bond can be forfeited, and the court can use the funds to cover any costs or damages resulting from the witness's absence 할 수 있습니다.
출석보증금액수 the amount of the appearance bond 는 법원에서결정하며 is determined by the court 일반적으로 증인증언의중요성 the importance of the witness's testimony, 증인부재의잠재적영향 the potential impact of their absence 에 따라 결정됩니다. 이 보증금은 보석금보증인 a bail bondsman 또는 보증회사 surety company 를 통해서 납부할 수도 있습니다.
이 일들은 사전구속과중요증인권리를형성 shape the law of pretrial detention and the rights of material witnesses 하는 데 도움이 되었습니다.
다음은 미국 대법원의 Appearance Bond of Witness 관련 판례입니다.
1. McCredy v. California (1948). 이 사건에서 대법원은 보증금지불능력이없는증인에게증인출석보증금을부과할수없다 ruled that a witness appearance bond cannot be imposed on a witness who is unable to pay the bond 고 판결. 대법원은 증인이증언하기위해보석금을내도록요구하는것은 requiring a witness to post a bond in order to testify 적법절차에대한증인의권리를침해하는것 is a violation of the witness's right to due process of law 이라고 판결. 또한 증인증언의이익은주정부가소환장발부와같은다른수단으로적절하게보호될수있
다고 언급 noted that the government has a strong interest in ensuring that witnesses appear to testify, and that this interest can be adequately protected by other means, such as issuing a subpoena. 이결정은또한가난한증인이법정에서증언할수있는능력에중요한영향을끼침 the decision has also had a significant impact on the ability of indigent witnesses to testify in court.
2. West Virginia v. Smith (1967). 이 사건은 형사재판에서증언하도록소환된증인과관련 involved a witness who was subpoenaed to testify in a criminal trial 된 것으로, 증인은가난하여보증금을낼수없었고 the witness was indigent and unable to post a bond, 1심법원은증인이증언하지않은것에법정모독죄로기소명령 the trial court ordered the witness to be held in contempt of court for failing to appear to testify 했음. 이에 증인은1심법원이감당할수없는보증금을내도록요구함으로써적법절차에대한 권리를침해했다고주장하며법정모독기소명령에항소 the witness appealed the contempt order, arguing that the trial court had violated his right to due process of law by requiring him to post a bond that he could not afford 하였고, 이에 대법원은1심법원이적법절차에대한증인의권리를침해했다고판결하면서 증인의의견에동의 the Supreme Court agreed with the witness, holding that the trial court had violated his right to due process of law 하여서 추가절차를위해사건을1심법원에환송함 the Court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 대법원은 증인이재판에출두할가능성을고려하여증인출석보증금을설정해야한다 a witness appearance bond must be set in consideration of the likelihood that the witness will appear for trial 고 판결. 또한보증금액수가증인에게과도한부담을주지않게책정되어야한다 also noted that the amount of the bond should be set in a way that does not unduly burden the witness 고 언급함. 이 West Virginia v. Smith 판결은 형사소송분야에서중요한사건 a significant case in the area of criminal procedure 으로, 이 결정은정부가법정증언요청받은증인에게과도한부담을주지않도록하는데도움 the decision has helped to ensure that the government cannot unduly burden witnesses who are called to testify in court 이 됨.
3. Washington v. West (1972). 이 사건은 형사재판에서증언하도록소환된증인관련 involved a witness who was subpoenaed to testify in a criminal trial 으로, 증인은사건의핵심증인이었으며 the witness was a key witness in the case, 증언은검찰사건의핵심 his testimony was essential to the prosecution's case 이었음. 증인은법정출석일에불출석한이력이있었고 the witness had a history of failing to appear for court dates, 검찰은이번재판에도불출석할 것을우려했음 and the prosecution was concerned that he would fail to appear for this trial as well. 이에 검찰은재판1심법원에증인출석을보장하기위해고액보증금을책정하도록 요청했고 the prosecution requested that the trial court set a high bond for the witness, in order to ensure his appearance, 1심법원은 검찰의 요청을 승인하고 $10,000의 보석금을 책정함 the trial court granted the prosecution's request, and set a bond of $10,000. 이에 증인은보증금이과하다며항소했고 the witness appealed the bond, arguing that it was excessive, 대법원은보증금이과하다면서증인에동의해 the Supreme Court agreed with the witness, holding that the bond was excessive 추가절차를위해사건을1심법원에환송 remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. 이 사건에서 대법원은 증인이출석하지않을경우입을피해를고려해증인출석보증금을책정해야한다고판
결 a witness appearance bond must be set in consideration of the harm that could be caused if the witness does not appear for trial. 이 결정은 정부가법정증언요청받은증인에게과도한부담을주지않도록하는데도움이됨 has helped to ensure that the government cannot unduly burden witnesses who are called to testify in court.
4. Bloomington University v. Isabel (1975): 이 사건에서 대법원은 증인출석보증금이증인불출석경우발생할피해보다과하면안된다 a witness appearance bond must not overcompensate for the harm that could be caused if the witness does not appear for trial 고 판결. 법원은 보증금액수는증인출석보장에합리적이고필요한방식으로책정되어야 the amount of the bond should be set in a way that is reasonable and necessary to ensure the witness's appearance, 보증금이증인을처벌하거나다른증인이출석하는것을저지하는수단으로사용되어
서는안된다 the bond should not be used as a means of punishing the witness or deterring other witnesses from coming forward 고 판결함. 대법원은 정부가증인증언보장이익이크지만증인의권리와균형을이루어야한다 reasoned that the government has a strong interest in ensuring that witnesses appear to testify, but that this interest must be balanced against the rights of the witness 면서, 또한 보증금액은증인이사건에중요한정보제공을방해하지않는방식으로결정되어야 the amount of the bond should be set in a way that does not discourage witnesses from coming forward with information that is important to the case 한다고 언급. 이 결정은정부가법정증언요청을받은증인에게과도한부담을주지않게하는데도움을
줌 the decision has helped to ensure that the government cannot unduly burden witnesses who are called to testify in court.
5. Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454 (1975). 이 사건에서 대법원은 중요한증인이판사앞에서진술할기회없이구금될수없다 a material witness may not be detained without being given an opportunity to be heard before a judge 고 판결. 대법원은 증인의증언확보에대한정부의이익이심리없이사전구속을정당화하기에충분하지
않다 the government's interest in securing the witness's testimony is not sufficient to justify pretrial detention without a hearing 고 판결.
6. United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987). 이 사건에서 대법원은 중요한증인 material witnesses 과 위험한피고인 dangerous defendants 에 대한 사전구속의합헌성 the constitutionality of pretrial detention 을 결정. 대법원은 정부의 도피를방지 preventing flight 하는 것과 사회안전을보장 ensuring the safety of the community 하는 일이 개인의자유권리 outweighed the individual's right to liberty 보다 중요하다고 판결.
7. Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988). 사건에서 대법원은 증거개시규칙 discovery rules 을 준수하지않은 a failure to comply 경우 적법절차 due process 와 증인의배제 exclusion of witnesses 에 관한 문제를 수정헌법제6조에따라 under the Sixth Amendment 증인과대면할권리 the right to confront witnesses 에 초점을 primarily focused 두고 증인출두보증금사용 touched upon the use of appearance bonds for witnesses 문제도 다루었음. 대법원은 증거공개위반에기초한 based on discovery violations 한 증인제외 the exclusion of witnesses 결정은 증인진술의중요성 the materiality of the witness's testimony 과 증인을공개하지않은책임 the culpability of the party who failed to disclose the witness 을 고려한 양형기준으로평가되어야 must be evaluated under a balancing test 한다고 판결.
8. Dorsey v. United States, 504 U.S. 184 (1992). 이 사건에서 대법원은 정부가 증인이 도주하거나 the witness is likely to flee 지역사회에위험을초래할가능성이있음을 pose a danger to the community 미리보여주지않고서는 without first showing 중요한증인을구금할수없다 cannot detain a material witness 고 판결. 대법원은 증인의증언확보에대한정부의 이익이지역사회에위험이나도주위험이없는사전구속을정당화하기에충분하지 않다 the government's interest in securing the witness's testimony is not sufficient to justify pretrial detention without a showing of danger or flight risk 라고 판결.
각 국가의 법원들은 고유의 소송 서식을 사용하므로 더 추가되는 내용들이 있지만 기본적으로 요구하는 내용은 크게 다르지 않아서 다른 국가와 비슷한 사건일 경우 본 내용을 참고하시기 바랍니다.
소송이 필요한 국가의 현지 변호사와 상담이나 번역과 통역을 원하시면 이메일 info@ilri.co.kr 로 문의해 주시기 바랍니다.
국제법 전문가 그룹 - 국제법률연구원
Highly specialized in international law ㅡ International Legal Research Institute
Email 📮 info@ilri.co.kr Website 🌎 www.ilri.co.kr
📞 [Korea 82] (0)507-1350-0621, (0)2-557-3476 📱 (0)10-5295-0621
(Free E-mail Consultation: Please send your inquiry to info@ilri.co.kr for consultation with lawyers in different time zone countries.)
Law Dept. (0)507-1351-0621 law@ilri.co.kr | Education Dept. (0)507-1352-0621 education@ilri.co.kr | Finance Dept. (0)507-1353-0621 finance@ilri.co.kr | Administration Dept. administration@ilri.co.kr | Press Dept. press@ilri.co.kr
#국제법 #국제계약 #국제법률연구원 #신동화 #International Law #ilri #ILRI #International Legal Research Institute #salomone shin #ilri.co.kr |
|
|
)
