Study on the Purpose of Criminal Statutes of Limitation : Comparison with the Guarantee of Speedy Trial

本研究的目的是研究美国联邦法院案件参考第六修正案保障快速审判与刑事诉讼时效的关系，并阐明刑事诉讼时效的目的。结果总结如下：(1)最高法院早就认定，“快速审判条款”的主要目的不是为了防止因时间的流逝而对辩方造成的损害，而防止过于陈腐的刑事指控的主要保障是诉讼时效。(2)因此，该条款在保护被告免受起诉前延误方面的作用非常有限。没有被监禁的被告在根据快速审判条款和正当程序要求提出宪法起诉前要求时被要求高标准。(3)然而，在道格特诉美国案（1992年）中，法院认为限制辩方因时间的推移而受到损害的可能性是该条款的一个独立和基本目标，此外，对特定偏见的肯定证据并不是每一个快速审判索赔所必需的。

The purpose of this study is to research on the U.S. federal courts cases refer to the relationship between the Sixth Amendment guarantee of speedy trial and criminal statute of limitations, and to clarify the purpose of the criminal statutes of limitations. The result are summarized as follows;(1) The Supreme Court has long identified that the Speedy Trial Clause is not primarily intended to prevent prejudice to the defense caused by passage of time, and the primary guarantee against overly stale criminal charges is the statute of limitations(2) So the role of the Clause in protecting defendants in pre-indictment delay has been very limited, and defendants who have not incarcerated are held to high standard in making out a constitutional pre-indictment claim under Speedy Trial Clause and Due Process Claim.(3) However, in Doggett v. United States (1992), the most recently decided cases about this problem, the Court held that limiting the possibility the defense will be impaired by passage of time is an independent and fundamental objective of the Clause, and furthermore, affirmative proof of particularized prejudice is not essential to every speedy trial claim.