Citizen Judges Act (Act on Criminal Trials with the participation of Citizen Judge (Guomin Faguan)) Article 64
After the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings the parties and the defense attorney may not petition for investigation on a new piece of evidence unless where there is one of the following circumstances:1. Where all the parties and the defense attorney agree to the investigation on a new piece of evidence and the court deems it appropriate;2. Where the new piece of evidence in question was acquired or its existence was known only after the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings;3. Where the investigation on a new piece of evidence would not disrupt the continuation of the litigation proceedings to a great extent;4. Where the investigation on a new piece of evidence is necessary for challenging the testimony given by the witness during the trial proceedings;5. Where the failure to investigate the piece of evidence in question before the conclusion of the preliminary proceedings was not due to the negligence on part of the parties; or6. Where disallowing the investigation of the piece of evidence in question would be obviously unfair.The circumstances in the various subparagraphs of the preceding paragraph shall be explained by the party which petitioned for the investigation of the piece of evidence in question.A petition that is not made in consistency with the provisions of Paragraph 1 of this article shall be dismissed by the court.
中文原文 國民法官法第64條
當事人、辯護人於準備程序終結後不得聲請調查新證據。
但有下列情形之一者,不在此限:
一、當事人、辯護人均同意,且法院認為適當者。
二、於準備程序終結後始取得證據或知悉其存在者。
三、不甚妨害訴訟程序之進行者。
四、為爭執審判中證人證述內容而有必要者。
五、非因過失,未能於準備程序終結前聲請者。
六、如不許其提出顯失公平者。
前項但書各款事由,應由聲請調查證據之人釋明之。
違反第一項之規定者,法院應駁回之。
但有下列情形之一者,不在此限:
一、當事人、辯護人均同意,且法院認為適當者。
二、於準備程序終結後始取得證據或知悉其存在者。
三、不甚妨害訴訟程序之進行者。
四、為爭執審判中證人證述內容而有必要者。
五、非因過失,未能於準備程序終結前聲請者。
六、如不許其提出顯失公平者。
前項但書各款事由,應由聲請調查證據之人釋明之。
違反第一項之規定者,法院應駁回之。