判例译析 | 证人以实时视频传输方式作证被允许么？

译者：李昀筱 浙江大学法本

审稿：汪晨涵 复旦大学法律硕士

         刘汉青 北京师范大学硕士

编辑：Gary 詹远 UNSW J.D

Phaninder PATHRI v. Srivani KAKARLAMATH

帕特里诉卡卡拉马斯案

案号：462 N.J.Super. 208

法院：Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division. 新泽西州高等法院上诉庭

庭辩日期：2019.12.17

判决日期：2020.1.23

l  Background 

I 背景

The parties came to the United States from India in 2007. They have two minor children. Plaintiff filed this suit in 2018 and, soon after, moved back to India. Defendant filed a counterclaim for a divorce. She and the children reside in Maryland. In May 2019, the judge set the matter down for a trial to occur in June 2019. A week before the scheduled trial, plaintiff moved in limine, claiming he was unable to obtain a visa to enter this country; he requested to appear and testify at trial from India by contemporaneous video transmission. Finding such a procedure would inhibit her ability to assess plaintiff's testimony and credibility, the judge of the Superior Court, Chancery Division, Hudson County denied the motion. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, stayed the divorce trial and granted leave to appeal.

双方于2007年从印度来到美国。他们有两个未成年的孩子。原告在2018年提起此诉讼不久后便搬回了印度。被告提出反诉，要求离婚。她和孩子们居住在马里兰州。2019年5月，法官决定将此事定于2019年6月进行审判。在预定的审判前一周，原告提出动议，声称他无法获得进入这个国家的签证；他要求通过实时视频传输的方式从印度出庭和作证。哈德逊县高等法院衡平法庭的法官认为这样的程序会对她评估原告证词和可信度的能力有不利影响，因此拒绝了该动议。高等法院上诉庭中止了该离婚案件的审理，并准许了上诉。

II  Holding 

II 判决

注：篇幅所限，本文仅选取了法院对于是否允许证人以实时视频传输的方式作证时需考虑因素的重点论证段落。

The Superior Court, Appellate Division, Fisher, P.J.A.D., held that in determining whether to allow testimony via contemporaneous video transmission, judges should consider multiple factors surrounding witness' presence and testimony.

高等法院上诉庭（法官）费舍尔（Fisher, P.J.A.D.）认为，在决定是否允许通过实时视频传输的方式作证时，法官应考虑与证人在场和作证有关的多种因素。

（1）The witness' importance to the proceeding

（1）证人对本案诉讼的重要性

The greater the witness' importance in the dispute, the heavier should be the burden of excusing in-person testimony. But, if the witness is merely conveying some information of relatively minor importance, or if the witness is a custodian of records, or the like, the burden ought not be onerous.

证人在本案纠纷中的重要性越大，免除其亲自作证的责任就越重。但是，如果证人只是传达了一些相对次要的信息，或者如果证人是档案保管员或者类似的人，那么（免除其亲自作证）的责任不应该太重。

（2）The severity of the factual dispute to which the witness will testify

（2）证人即将作证的争议事实的重要性

The judge should consider whether the witness – even if a party – is offered to address a sharply disputed question of fact, something that goes to the heart of the matter. We are told that the parties' forthcoming trial will mainly address alimony and equitable distribution issues. The applicable statutes – N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23 and N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23.1 – provide as guidance numerous factors for a judge in determining whether alimony is appropriate, and, if so, its duration and amount, as well as how a judge should fairly divide marital property. Some factors – like the length of the marriage, the age of the parties, their health, parental responsibilities, and absence from the job market – may be obvious and undisputed. Others – like the parties' lifestyle, financial and non-financial contributions to the marital partnership, and the need and ability to pay – may be disputed or uncertain. When a party seeks to present remote testimony during a matrimonial trial, the judge should examine what it is that is in dispute and then determine what the witness contributes to the dispute's resolution.

法官应考虑是否要求该证人——乃至是一方当事人——解决一个有激烈争议的，即涉及到本案纠纷核心的事实问题。我们得知，双方即将进行的诉讼将主要解决离婚扶养费及其公平分配问题。适用的法规——新泽西州修订法案（New Jersey Revised Statutes）民事与刑事司法管理部分（2A指向Administration of Civil and Criminal Justice）第34条第23款（规定alimony, maintenance扶养、赡养费）和第34条第23第1项（规定equitable distribution criteria，公平分配标准）——为法官在确定离婚扶养费是否合适，如果合适，（给予离婚扶养费的）期限和金额为何，以及为法官应如何公平分配婚姻财产提供了许多指导因素。有些因素——如婚姻的存续期间、双方的年龄及健康状况、（身为）父母的责任、以及未就业的情况——可能是明显和无可争议的。其他因素——如双方的生活方式、对婚姻关系经济上和非经济上的贡献，以及开支的需要和能力——可能有争议或是不确定的。在与婚姻有关的诉讼中，当一方试图提供远程证词时，法官应审查有争议的是什么，然后确定该证人对解决争议将有什么影响。

A judge asked to consider the propriety of a witness' testimony by contemporaneous video transmission should inquire into the scope and substance of that testimony, and whether that testimony is actually in dispute, before determining whether that witness should testify in person. The court should ascertain the significance of the witness' credibility and demeanor and whether the factfinder is better served in its truth-finding function by having testimony in person rather than by contemporaneous video transmission.

法官在被请求通过实时视频传输的方式来考虑证人证词的适当性时，在决定证人是否应亲自作证之前，应调查该证词的范围和实质，以及该证词是否确实存在争议。法院应确定证人的可信度和行为举止的重要性，以及让证人亲自作证而不是通过实时视频传输的方式是否更有利于履行调查事实的职能。

（3）Whether the factfinder is a judge or a jury

（3）事实调查者是法官还是陪审团

It should be plainly obvious that our third factor – whether the factfinder is a judge or a jury – is material to the decision. In many instances a judge would likely overcome whatever barrier to ascertaining the witness' credibility and demeanor is created by contemporaneous video transmission than would a jury of laypersons not accustomed to weighing testimony in any form. See In re Marriage of Swaka, 179 Wash.App. 549, 319 P.3d 69, 73 (2014).[1]

显而易见，我们的第三个因素——事实调查者是法官还是陪审团——对决定至关重要。在许多情况下，外行陪审团不习惯以任何形式斟酌证词，相较而言，法官可能得以克服实时视频传输造成的任何障碍来确定证人的可信度和行为举止。参见In re Marriage Swaka案（华盛顿州上诉法院第二分庭，2014）[2]。

（4）The cost of requiring the witness' physical appearance in court versus the cost of transmitting the witness' testimony in some other form

（4）权衡要求证人出庭的成本和以其他形式传送证人证词的成本

Whatever costs are associated with requiring the witness to appear in person should be weighed against the cost of the contemporaneous video transmission. See Lopez v. NTI, LLC, 748 F. Supp. 2d 471, 480 (D. Md. 2010); Angamarca v. Da Ciro, Inc., 303 F.R.D. 445, 446-48 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). That would not only include the travel and lodging expenses necessarily incurred but other costs, such as the impact on a party's income caused by a loss of time from work. We know that plaintiff lives and works in India. The cost of the flight and a hotel are one thing; there also may be an impact on his income and employment caused by any loss of time from work by traveling to New Jersey rather than testifying remotely. Judges should consider whether the cost of insisting on in-person testimony is simply not worth whatever the impact on the factfinder's assessment of the witness or, for that matter, what it is the parties are fighting over.

无论要求证人亲自出庭的费用如何，（法官）都应将其与实时视频传输的费用进行权衡。参见Lopez v. NTI, LLC案（马里兰州地方法院，2010）和Angamarca v. Daciro, Inc.案（纽约特区地方法院，2012）。这不仅包括必然产生的差旅和住宿费用，还包括其他费用，例如因工作时间损失而对一方收入的影响。我们知道原告在印度生活和工作。机票和酒店的费用是一回事；前往新泽西州而不是远程作证所导致的任何时间损失也可能对他的收入和就业造成影响。法官应考虑，无论对事实调查者对证人的评估产生什么影响，坚持亲自作证是否根本不值得，或者就此而言，双方争论的焦点究竟是什么。

（5）The delay caused by insisting on the witness' physical appearance in court versus the speed and convenience of allowing the transmission in some other manner

（5）权衡坚持要求证人出庭所造成的延迟与允许以其他方式传输（证言）的速度和便利性

The delay in the case's disposition is also a factor. In fairness, a judge should consider the scheduling of a trial date that does not cause an undue economic impact on the witness while traveling to and from and testifying in New Jersey. That consideration could make scheduling difficulties that would not be presented if, as in this case, plaintiff was permitted to testify from India. That delay also has a value that should be included in the calculus.

案件延迟处理也是因素之一。公平起见，法官应考虑安排一个不会对证人往返和在新泽西州作证造成不当经济影响的审判日期。这种（挑选一个合适审判日期）的考虑可能会造成安排上的不便，但如果像本案一样，允许原告在印度作证，则无需顾虑。所以这种延迟的价值也应包含在（成本）的计算中。

（6）Whether the witness' inability to be present in court at the time of trial was foreseeable or preventable

（6）证人在审判时无法出庭是否可以预见或预防

Foreseeability of the circumstance that called for the application to testify by contemporaneous video transmission seems a valid consideration. A sudden business trip or family member's illness may require a party to travel abroad at or around the time of a trial; a judge may inquire as to the circumstances that led to that trip and determine whether the witness was faced with the unavoidable consequence of being outside the jurisdiction at the time of trial. The record reveals that plaintiff moved to India shortly after commencing this divorce action. Although most divorce actions are resolved without a trial, a party taking that step should consider the possibility and plan accordingly. In making the determination whether to permit testimony by contemporaneous video transmission, a judge has a right to know what steps plaintiff took in advance of his departure to avoid the need for the relief now sought and assess the bona fides of that party's actions.

申请通过实时视频传输作证这一情况的可预见性似乎是一个正当的考虑。突然出差或家人生病可能需要一方在审判期间或前后出国一趟；法官可以询问导致这次出行的原因，并确定证人在审判时是否面临无法避免的处于司法辖区之外的后果。记录显示，原告在离婚诉讼开始后不久就搬到了印度。尽管大多数离婚诉讼都是通过非审判的方式解决的，但采取该步骤（即离开司法辖区）的一方应考虑这种（指通过审判方式解决离婚纠纷）可能性并做出相应的计划。在决定是否允许通过实时视频传输作证时，法官有权知道原告在他离开之前采取了哪些步骤来避免出现当下这种需要寻求救济的情况，并评估他的行为的诚意性。

（7）The witness' difficulty in appearing in person

（7）证人亲自出庭的难处

Most of the focus in the trial court was on the alleged difficulty or impossibility of plaintiff entering the United States to attend the trial. He claims he is unable to obtain a visa. If that is true it would greatly favor granting the relief he seeks. See El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates, 496 F.3d 658, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2007).[3] The judge and defendant questioned that contention or, at the very least, believed that plaintiff should have provided greater evidence of his claimed inability to obtain a visa. We agree that these are all circumstances that factor into the analysis. But, as we have already described, the fact that plaintiff may be able to gain authorization to reenter the United States is not the only factor that should be considered.

初审法院的大部分焦点都集中在所谓的原告难以或不可能进入美国参加审判的问题上。原告声称他无法获得签证。如果这是真的，那将非常有利于给予他所寻求的救济。参见El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates案（哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院，2007）[4]。法官和被告质疑这一论点，或者至少认为原告应该提供更多的证据来证明他声称的无法获得签证（这一事实）。我们同意，这些都是影响分析的因素。但是，正如我们已经描述的那样，原告可能能够获得重新进入美国的授权这一事实并不是唯一应该考虑的因素。

lII  Conclusion

总结

Ultimately, courts asked to make such rulings must remain mindful of Rule 1:1-2, which declares that the court rules are to be “construed to secure a just determination, simplicity in procedure, fairness in administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.” The factors we have proposed should aid in determining whether the principles stated in Rule 1:1-2, which undergird the application of all court rules, see Salazar v. MKGC Design, 458 N.J. Super. 551, 557-58, 206 A.3d 447 (App. Div. 2019), favor or disfavor allowing plaintiff to testify by contemporaneous video transmission. Indeed, in most cases, it would be hard to imagine that the fair application of these principles would lead to a trial that lacks a party's testimony rather than contains that testimony in a less than desirable form. If a party is not permitted to testify by way of contemporaneous video transmission, and is unable to attend in person notwithstanding, the ruling could have the undesirable effect of turning the trial into a proof hearing in favor of the one party able to attend. Judges, in the final analysis, should be wary of the impact such a ruling would have on the overall presentation of the proofs.

最终，被请求作出此类裁决的法院必须牢记规则1:1-2，该规则声明法院规则应“被解释为确保裁决的公正性、程序的简单性、行政的公平性以及消除不合理的费用和延迟。”我们提出的因素应有助于确定规则1:1-2中所述的原则（这些原则是所有法院规则适用的基础）是否支持或反对允许原告通过实时视频传输作证，参见Salazar v. MKGC Design案（新泽西州高等法院上诉庭，2019）。事实上，在大多数情况下，很难想象公平应用这些原则会导致证词并非以不太理想的形式呈现，而是在审判中“缺席”。如果一方不被允许通过实时视频传输的方式作证，并且无法亲自出席，该裁决可能会产生不良影响，将审判变成有利于能够出席的一方的证据听证会。归根结底，法官应该警惕这样的判决会对证据的整体呈现产生的影响。

If it is determined that these factors favor allowing plaintiff to testify from India, we do not foreclose the judge's right to impose appropriate conditions on the manner of the transmission. We also do not foreclose the judge's exercise of discretion in denying relief if important conditions cannot be met.

如果确定这些因素有利于允许原告从印度作证，我们并不剥夺法官对传输方式施加适当条件的权利。如果无法满足重要条件，我们也不会阻止法官行使自由裁量权，拒绝给予救济。

The judge, for example, may require a particular size monitor or multiple monitors in the courtroom for the transmission, as well as insist on a particular framing of what the video transmits (in other words, whether the image is not just of the witness' face but also enough of his body so that the judge could better appreciate his overall demeanor). The judge has the right to expect clear video and audio, and that the remote witness testify from a place suitable to the solemnity of the proceeding. Copies of documents that the parties expect to show the witness should be forwarded to that location in advance.

例如，法官可能会要求在法庭上使用特定尺寸的显示器或使用多个显示器进行视频传输，并坚持要求对视频传输画面设定一个特定的框架（换句话说，画面是否不能仅是证人的脸出镜，而且还需要有足够的身体部分出镜，以便法官能够更好地观察他整体的行为举止）。法官有权要求清晰的视频和音频，并要求远程作证的证人在符合诉讼庄严性的地点作证。当事人希望向证人出示的文件副本应提前送交至该地点。

lV  Observation 

IV 评论

链接：https://www.paonezaleski.com/the-ten-most-important-family-law-cases-reported-in-2020/

The importance and usefulness of video testimony as addressed in the Pathri v. Kakarlamath opinion has come to the forefront since the coronavirus pandemic and has had a significant impact on how courts have conducted divorce trials and plenary hearings in the Family Part. Pursuant to Directive #12-20 which was promulgated by the New Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts on April 27, 2020, divorce trials as well as other court events may proceed remotely by utilizing virtual platforms such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams. These mediums enable parties, witnesses, and attorneys with access to the internet to participate in video court proceedings. Divorce trials and post-judgment plenary hearings may take place remotely with or without the parties’ consent. New Jersey courts continue to monitor the efficacy of virtual hearings on a case-by-case basis and take into consideration such factors as the available resources, the type of event, and the participants as video hearings will undoubtedly have its limitations depending on the unique facts and circumstances of each case.  

自新冠病毒大流行以来，Pathri v. Kakarlamath案意见中提到的视频证词的重要性和有用性已成为焦点，并对法院如何在家事领域进行离婚审判和举行全体听证会产生了重大影响。根据新泽西州法院行政办公室于2020年4月27日颁布的第12-10号指令，离婚审判和其他法庭活动可以通过使用Zoom或Microsoft Teams等虚拟平台远程进行。这些媒体使可以访问互联网的当事人、证人和律师能够参与视频庭审。离婚审判和判决后的全体听证会可以在双方同意或不同意的情况下远程进行。新泽西州法院继续逐案监督虚拟听证会的有效性，并考虑可用资源、事件类型和参与者等因素，因为视频听证无疑会因每个案件的独特事实和情况而有其局限性。

[1] The notion that a judge as factfinder has a critical need to view the witness face to face, or observe the witness' body language in person, in order to make findings about the witness' credibility and demeanor may be greatly exaggerated. Many bench trials are conducted by placing the witness in a box below and to the immediate left or right of the judge, who is left to consider the witness' demeanor while looking at the side of the witness' face. Depending on the framing of the transmission – a condition that a judge may impose in ruling on an application for remote testimony, as we discuss later in this opinion – a judge may actually have a better opportunity to observe the witness “face to face” and to assess the witness' body language while testifying by video than the judge would if the witness were required to testify in person. We, thus, do not give as much weight to the concerns expressed by other courts that video conferencing deprives a factfinder of “[t]he immediacy of a living person,” Stoner v. Sowders, 997 F.2d 209, 213 (6th Cir. 1993), or that “[v]irtual reality is rarely a substitute for actual presence,” United States v. Lawrence, 248 F.3d 300, 304 (4th Cir. 2001).

[2] 认为法官作为事实调查者有必要面对面地观察证人或亲自观察证人的肢体语言，以便对证人的可信度和行为举止做出调查的观点可能被过分夸大了。许多法庭审判是通过将证人安排于法官下方和左侧或右侧的“盒子”(指证人席)中进行的，法官可以一边看着证人的侧脸一边考虑证人的举止。根据视频传输的画面大小——这是法官在准许远程作证申请时可能施加的一种条件，正如我们稍后在本意见中所讨论的那样——与要求证人亲自作证相比，在通过视频作证时法官实际上可能有更好的机会“面对面”观察证人并评估证人的肢体语言。因此，我们不太重视其他法院所表达的关切，即视频会议使事实调查者失去了观察“一个活人的即时性”，参见Stoner v. Sowders案 (第六巡回上诉法院，1993)，或者“虚拟现实很少能够替代实际存在”，参见United States v. Lawrence案 (第四巡回上诉法院，2001)。

[3] A witness' health may also cause the type of difficulty that would inure in favor of testimony by contemporaneous video transmission. See, e.g., Zuraff v. Reiger, 911 N.W. 2d 887, 892-95 (N.D. 2018).

[4] 证人的健康状况也可能导致有利于通过实时视频传输作证的那种困难类型。参见Zuraff v. Reiger案（北达科州最高法院，2018）。

原文链接：

https://1.next.westlaw.com/Document/I188bfba03e5911ea959390ec898a3607/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad62af000000183e99e28b000c6e8b8%3Fppcid%3D14f5cac507864596872d7a7e5c82d013%26Nav%3DALL%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI188bfba03e5911ea959390ec898a3607%26parentRank%3D0%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=e9e451a83b1964a9ac33530ab65fe37e&list=ALL&sessionScopeId=3bdf179c5720441c9ab4927fb4c53a88a0461400d6cd07aa63d26e29a6f1624c&ppcid=14f5cac507864596872d7a7e5c82d013&originationContext=Smart%20Answer&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29