我国审前非法证据排除适用研究

发布时间：2018-05-18 03:44

本文选题：审前程序 + 非法证据排除　；参考：《华东政法大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：人大通过修改新刑诉法在立法的层面上确立了一种多层次的非法证据排除规则，但是在颁布施行的一年里，各地多起被平反错案屡见报端，受到各方关注，在这些备受瞩目的案件中，均涉及到因为受到刑讯逼供而由此产生的非法证据排除问题。例如浙江叔侄杀人案、河南李怀亮案，加上之前的北海案，赵作海案、聂树斌案等等。这些冤假错案的频发，说明在司法实践中非法取证现象泛滥，然而在调查取证以及审查起诉阶段，都没有有效地将这些非法证据及时排除，从而流入法庭庭审中成为定案的依据，严重侵害了犯罪嫌疑人、被告人的利益，破坏了我国司法制度的公正。新刑事诉讼法在增加的条文中明确规定了“在侦查、审查起诉、审判时发现有应当排除的证据的，应当依法予以排除，不得作为起诉意见、起诉决定和判决的依据。”这说明侦查机关和检察机关在法庭审判前的审前程序中就负有对非法证据排除的职责，但是对于审前非法证据排除新刑诉法的规定过于笼统，缺乏程序性内容的要求。在本文中，基于希望通过非法证据排除规则在审前的良好运作，侦查机关能够促进自身的的取证行为，此外，在审前排除非法获取的证据，能够有效在审判阶段将庭审法官和来源不合法的证据之间形成屏障，阻隔两者之间的联系，使得法官对案件结果的判决避免产生预断，保证刑事司法的公正。本文运用比较分析方法，通过对国外非法证据排除规则的立法现状的比较分析，解读法律条文的内涵，同时得出对我国实施审前非法证据排除的启示。另外，本文在论述司法实践中非法证据排除规则实施现状时，采用了实证研究的方法，引入具体的案例。本文在写作结构上共分为导言和正文两部分，导言主要介绍了本文的研究的目的与意义。正文分为四大部分，第一部分是对我国审前非法证据排除规则的概述，，非法证据的概念，非法证据排除规则的立法考察与司法现状的介绍。认为我国审前非法证据排除规则正处于尴尬的处境。第二部分介绍国外非法证据排除规则的立法现状，通过对英美法系国家和大陆法系国家的对比分析，从而解读出对我国审前非法证据排除的范围的启示。第三部分介绍了审前非法证据排除规则的必要性。笔者主要通过对程序正义、审判公正、诉讼效率以及权利限制的法理分析，进而对审前公安机关和检察机关排除非法证据的必然性加以论证，最后得出，在审前侦查阶段和审查起诉阶段排除非法证据的积极作用，也是顺应我国宏观司法体制的客观需要。第四部分是本文的重点，笔者通过对审前公安机关和检察机关对非法证据排除的问题进行讨论，主要是公安机关非法证据排除程序的启动主体、非法证据的审查主体、方式、结果及救济，检察机关的非法证据排除的启动、告知程序，非法证据的审查方式、结果及救济。本文立足于对审前非法证据排除规则的研究，期望审前非法证据排除规定能得到良好的实行，发挥作用。
[Abstract]:The people's Congress has established a multi-level illegal evidence exclusionary rule on the legislative level by revising the new criminal procedure law. However, in the year of promulgation and implementation, many places have been repeatedly seen in the newspaper and received the attention of all sides. In these highly respected cases, all the illegal evidence produced by the extorting of the confession from torture has been involved. In addition to the problems, such as the murder of the Zhejiang nephew, the case of Li Huailiang in Henan, the previous Beihai case, the Zhao Zuohai case, the Nie Shu Bin case, and so on. The frequent occurrence of these false and wrong cases shows that the illegal evidence in the judicial practice is overflowing. However, the illegal evidence has not been effectively eliminated in time for the investigation and the examination and prosecution. In the court trial, it becomes the basis of the case, which seriously infringes on the interests of the criminal suspects and the defendants and destroys the justice of the judicial system in our country. The new criminal procedure law clearly stipulates that the evidence that should be excluded in the investigation, examination and prosecution and the trial should be ruled out in accordance with the law and may not be taken as an opinion of prosecution. This indicates that the investigation and procuratorial organs are responsible for the exclusion of illegal evidence in the pre trial procedure before the trial of the court, but the provisions of the new criminal procedure law for the pretrial illegal evidence are too general and lack of procedural content. In this article, it is based on the hope that the illegal evidence is excluded. In the good operation of the rules before the trial, the investigative organs can promote their own proof of evidence. In addition, to exclude the evidence obtained illegally before the trial, it can effectively form a barrier between the judge and the unlawful evidence at the trial stage and obstruct the connection between the two, so that the judge can avoid a prejudgment on the judgment of the case results. The impartiality of criminal justice.
In this paper, by comparing and analyzing the legislative situation of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence abroad, this paper interprets the connotation of the provisions of the law, and at the same time draws the enlightenment to the implementation of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in our country. In addition, this paper adopts an empirical research method in the discussion of the implementation of the illegal evidence exclusion rules in judicial practice. Introduce specific cases.
This article is divided into the introduction and the two part of the text. The introduction mainly introduces the purpose and significance of the study. The text is divided into four parts. The first part is an overview of the exclusionary rule of the pretrial evidence in China, the concept of illegal evidence, the introduction of the legislative investigation and judicial status of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence. The exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence before the state is in an awkward situation.
The second part introduces the legislative status of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence abroad, and through the comparison and analysis of the countries of the Anglo American legal system and the civil law countries, the enlightenment to the scope of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in our country is explained.
The third part introduces the necessity of the exclusionary rule of pretrial illegal evidence. The author mainly through the legal analysis of procedural justice, justice of trial, litigation efficiency and the limitation of rights, and then demonstrates the inevitability of the pretrial public security organs and procuratorial organs to exclude illegal evidence, and the most later, in the stage of the pre trial investigation and the stage of examination and prosecution. Excluding the positive role of illegal evidence is also an objective need to comply with our macro judicial system.
The fourth part is the focus of this article. Through the discussion of the problem of the exclusion of illegal evidence by the public security organs and procuratorial organs before the trial, the main part is the main body of the illegal evidence exclusion procedure of the public security organs, the subject of the examination of illegal evidence, the way, the result and the relief, the starting of the illegal evidence exclusion of the procuratorial machine, the informing procedure and the illegal evidence. According to the method of examination, results and relief. This article is based on the study of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence before the trial. It is expected that the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence before trial can be implemented well and play a role.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】