“王朝案”中的证据法难题及其破解
发布时间：2018-09-08 19:03
【摘要】："王朝案"的发生引发了三个证据法上的疑难问题:一是证据的合法性问题,主要涉及侦查人员无管辖权取证的效力问题;二是瑕疵证据的补正和合理解释"度"问题;三是证据采信的公正性问题,尤其是特殊侦查措施所获证据应否公开质证的问题。从证据法理上讲,侦查机关虽然违反管辖权而取证,但若并未侵犯被追诉人公正审判权,所获证据自无排除之必要;瑕疵证据的补正或合理解释"度",以确证瑕疵证据的客观性和真实性为已足;特殊侦查措施所获的证据材料,虽然可以不向公众公开,即实行不公开审理,但却必须向辩方公开特殊侦查的结果,并允许辩护人参与该证据的质证过程。
[Abstract]:The occurrence of the "dynasty case" has caused three difficult problems in evidence law: firstly, the legality of evidence, mainly involving the effectiveness of investigators without jurisdiction to obtain evidence; secondly, the correction of defective evidence and the reasonable interpretation of "degree"; thirdly, the fairness of evidence acceptance, especially whether the evidence obtained by special investigative measures should be made public. Jurisprudentially speaking, the evidence obtained by the investigative organ, though violating jurisdiction, is not necessary to be excluded if it does not infringe the prosecuted's right to a fair trial; the correction of defective evidence or the reasonable interpretation of "degree" are sufficient to verify the objectivity and authenticity of defective evidence; and the evidence obtained by special investigative measures, though However, it may not be open to the public, i.e. a closed trial, but the result of a special investigation must be made public to the defense and the defender must be allowed to participate in the cross-examination of the evidence.
【作者单位】： 四川大学法学院;
【基金】：教育部“新世纪优秀人才支持计划”资助项目“隐形刑事诉讼法2”(编号:NCET-10-0602)
【分类号】：D925.2;D920.5
[Abstract]:The occurrence of the "dynasty case" has caused three difficult problems in evidence law: firstly, the legality of evidence, mainly involving the effectiveness of investigators without jurisdiction to obtain evidence; secondly, the correction of defective evidence and the reasonable interpretation of "degree"; thirdly, the fairness of evidence acceptance, especially whether the evidence obtained by special investigative measures should be made public. Jurisprudentially speaking, the evidence obtained by the investigative organ, though violating jurisdiction, is not necessary to be excluded if it does not infringe the prosecuted's right to a fair trial; the correction of defective evidence or the reasonable interpretation of "degree" are sufficient to verify the objectivity and authenticity of defective evidence; and the evidence obtained by special investigative measures, though However, it may not be open to the public, i.e. a closed trial, but the result of a special investigation must be made public to the defense and the defender must be allowed to participate in the cross-examination of the evidence.
【作者单位】： 四川大学法学院;
【基金】：教育部“新世纪优秀人才支持计划”资助项目“隐形刑事诉讼法2”(编号:NCET-10-0602)
【分类号】：D925.2;D920.5
【共引文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 滕山岭;;完善刑事附带民事诉讼制度——对刑事附带民事诉讼制度现状的认识和构想[J];青春岁月;2011年16期
2 万毅;;解读“非法证据”——兼评“两个《证据规定》”[J];清华法学;2011年02期
3 李文华;浅议立案程序及其改革[J];青海民族学院学报;2004年01期
4 李娜玲;刘晗敏;;程序性辩护之宪政根基[J];求索;2009年03期
5 陈怀安;论刑事强制措施的限制、适度适用与制度完善[J];人民检察;2005年16期
6 曲卫东;;坦白从宽在刑事诉讼程序上的体现[J];人民检察;2011年20期
7 王，
本文编号：2231414
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/fashilw/2231414.html
