非法证据证明责任问题研究

发布时间：2017-12-30 21:04

本文关键词：非法证据证明责任问题研究　出处：《吉林大学》2015年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：非法证据排除规则作为一种旨在限制证据能力的规则，有着其他证据规则所不可比拟的诉讼功能，为实现其保障人权的目的，我国在立法方面做出了不懈的努力，相关立法分别就非法证据的排除范围、证明责任、证明标准、排除程序等问题进行了规定，但在这其中有关证明责任问题的规定尤为重要。因为“证明责任乃诉讼的脊梁”，证明责任如何进行分配除却重大的理论价值，更是会直接影响到诉讼结果。非法证据排除规则能够在多大程度上得以顺利实施，很大程度上取决于证明责任如何分配，以及实际承担情况如何。本文便是针对此关键问题而写，本着提出问题解决问题的研究思路，从我国就该问题的相关法律规定入手，继而深入分析其在立法以及司法实践中所存在的问题，并针对性提出解决思路，以期能对日后非法证据排除规则的顺利实施有所帮助。本文共由前言和四部分内容组成。第一部分主要介绍我国关于非法证据证明责任的相关立法。着重介绍了贡献较为突出的2010年的两高三部联合颁布的《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的规定》（以下简称《非法证据排除规定》），因它首次正式确立非法证据排除规则；以及2012年新修订的《刑事诉讼法》，它第一次将非法证据排除规则写入法典，并在其相关的司法解释中对规则的实施予以了一定程度上的细化。无论是《非法证据排除规定》还是《刑事诉讼法》，均明确规定了辩方在申请启动非法证据排除程序时应承担初步证明责任，同时也明确规定公诉方对证据合法性承担证明责任。第二部分针对相关立法内容着重分析控辩双方分担证明责任的理论依据。辩方承担证明责任源于公诉方证明所存在的局限性，同时如此分配也便于确定裁判者调查核实非法取证行为的范围，而规定其承担证明责任的目的就在于防止辩护方为恶意拖延诉讼而滥用诉讼权利，肆意的启动非法证据的排除审查程序。而法律规定公诉方对证据合法性承担证明责任，，则是无罪推定原则、程序公正原则、法律监督理论、以及违法控制理论等的要求。第三部分是关于非法证据证明责任立法与实践中存在问题的论述。立法方面存在的问题突出表现为我国相关立法就证明责任的分配问题规定的过于简单、粗疏，非法证据范围的狭窄削减了控方的证明责任，而且辩方承担证明责任的性质也规定的不明确，辩方卸除证明责任的标准也不明晰，而如此一来势必为司法实践预留大打折扣的空间。而司法实践方面也存在着运行不畅的问题，主要表现为：辩护方举证能力有限，并不能有效的承担证明责任；法庭启动非法证据排除程序困难；控方合法性证明责任履行形式化等等。第四部分是对非法证据证明责任立法完善的构想。具体举措包括有：细化控辩双方证明责任承担规则、提升辩方举证能力、抑制控方证明形式化等等。
[Abstract]:As a kind of illegal evidence exclusion rules aimed at limiting the evidence ability rules, with the function of litigation can't be compared with other rules of evidence, to achieve the purpose of protection of human rights, China has made unremitting efforts in terms of legislation, the relevant legislation on the exclusion of illegal evidence, the burden of proof, standard of proof, procedure of exclusion the problems of the provisions, but in the relevant provisions of the burden of proof is very important. Because the burden of proof is the backbone of the burden of proof, litigation "how to carry out the value distribution theory but is more significant, it will directly affect the outcome of the litigation. The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence can be successfully implemented in a large extent, great depends on how to allocate the burden of proof, and the actual situation. How to take to solve this problem, this paper is written, based on research ideas and solve some problem, Starting from the relevant laws and regulations of our country on the issue, and then in-depth analysis of the problems existing in legislation and judicial practice, and put forward the solutions, in order to help the smooth implementation of the day after the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence.
This article is composed of the preface and the four parts.
The first part mainly introduces the legislation about the burden of proof of illegal evidence in our country. Focuses on the prominent contribution in 2010 two three Department jointly issued the "provisions on Several Issues concerning the handling of exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal cases" (hereinafter referred to as the "illegal evidence exclusion rules, >) because it first established the exclusionary rule; in 2012, the newly revised" Criminal Procedure Law ", it will be the first time the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in the written law, the relevant judicial interpretations of the implementation of the rules to be refined to a certain extent. Whether it is" non law evidence exclusion provisions on Criminal Procedure Law > or <, are clearly defined in the defense should be bear the burden of proof in the preliminary application of exclusionary procedure, but also clear that the prosecution should bear the burden of proof of the legality of the evidence.
The second part focuses on analysis of relevant legislation on both sides share the theoretical basis of the burden of proof. The burden of proof due to the limitation of prosecution evidence exists, and the range of distribution is so easy to determine the investigation and verification of illegal action, and the provisions of the burden of proof is to prevent malicious defense delay litigation and litigation rights abuse, to start the exclusion of illegal evidence and the law review procedure. The prosecution of legal evidence to bear the burden of proof, is the principle of presumption of innocence, the principle of procedural justice, legal supervision theory, control theory and law requirements.
The third part is about the illegal evidence of the existence of problems in legislation and practice. The provisions of responsibility allocation problem of legislation existing outstanding performance for the relevant legislation in our country is the burden of proof is too simple, careless, illegal evidence and narrow the scope of cut the burden of proof, and the burden of proof is also provided clearly, the removal of burden of proof standard is not clear, and thus will be reserved for the judicial practice and judicial practice greatly reduced the space. There are also running smoothly, the main performance is: the ability of the defense evidence is limited, and can not effectively bear the burden of proof; the court to start the procedure of excluding illegal evidence difficult; the legitimacy proof responsibility form and so on.
The fourth part is the conception of legislation improvement of the burden of proof of illegal evidence. The specific measures include: refining the burden of proof, the burden of proof, enhancing the ability of the witness to give evidence, and suppressing the formalization of the prosecution.

【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D925.2

【相似文献】