检察机关排除非法证据研究

发布时间：2018-05-24 09:35

本文选题：检察机关 + 非法证据　；参考：《吉林大学》2014年博士论文

【摘要】：非法证据排除规则产生于1914年美国联邦最高法院审理的威克斯诉美国一案，伴随着两大法系不同国家间的交流与融合，非法证据排除规则已被世界上绝大多数国家的刑事立法和刑事司法所采用，我国也已将非法证据排除规则正式写入刑诉法。在我国的宪政体制下，检察机关作为国家的法律监督机关，不仅行使职务犯罪侦查权和公诉权，还行使着对刑事诉讼全程进行法律监督的职权。我国检察机关检察权权能的多元化特点和对刑事诉讼活动全程参与的独特属性，决定了检察机关在刑事诉讼中排除非法证据的重要性、复杂性和特殊性。本文以检察机关为视角，采用比较分析法、价值分析法及思辨与实证相结合的方法，对检察机关在刑事诉讼中排除非法证据的相关内容予以系统梳理和详细阐释。全文主要内容除导论外，共分六章。在第一章中，笔者论述了检察机关在刑事诉讼中排除非法证据的重要作用、理论基础和价值取向。证据裁判原则是现代法治国家证据制度的基石，，也被称作证据裁判主义。证据的合法性是证据裁判原则的重要内涵之一，不具备合法性特质的证据往往缺乏真实性，证据必须经过示证、质证并被有效证明后，方能作为定案根据；程序性制裁理论在西方法学界受到了较早的重视，程序性制裁针对的是程序性违法行为，程序性违法行为可能存在于刑事诉讼的任何阶段，非法证据排除规则是程序性制裁的重要手段之一；根据我国宪法、刑诉法的规定，人民检察院在刑事诉讼过程中享有广泛职权，全程参与刑事诉讼，而根据我国刑诉法的规定，非法证据排除规则也是贯穿刑事诉讼活动始终的，这决定了检察机关在刑事诉讼排除非法证据方面能够发挥重要的作用，但是也面临着诸多挑战和冲突，包括非法证据的审查和被审查角色的冲突，证据排除与公诉权实现的冲突及排除非法证据的法律监督与被监督的角色冲突；检察机关排除非法证据的理论基础应包括三项内容，即程序正义理论、客观公正义务理论和法律监督理论；检察机关在刑事诉讼中排除非法证据不仅体现了人权保障与限制公权力的价值，更是维护司法尊严和司法公信力的客观需要。在第二章中，笔者对英美法系和大陆法系主要国家的非法证据排除规则进行了考察，并论述了各国检察官在排除非法证据过程中的作用。就刑事诉讼中的非法证据排除规则而言，英美法系的排除规则比大陆法系的排除规则更具有丰富内容，尤其是美国，其非法证据排除规则最为发达。对于非法言辞证据，由于其对公民宪法权利的严重危害性，无论是英美法系还是大陆法系，各国一般都规定了强制排除；对于非法实物证据，美国要求原则排除，而英国、德国和日本则将非法实物证据的排除委诸于法官自由裁量。美国要求排除非法证据衍生出的“毒树之果”，而英国、德国和日本一般不予排除。各国对非法证据排除规则具体范围的设定，反映了惩罚犯罪与保护人权之间天然的紧张关系。就检察官在排除非法证据中的作用而言，英国和美国的检察部门与警察部门相对独立，互不隶属，检察官仅享有十分有限的侦查引导权，基本不会在刑事案件侦查阶段涉足非法证据的排除。而德国和日本的检察部门对警察部门的侦查活动享有领导权和指挥权，更能有效地阻止警察的非法侦查行为，防止非法取证行为的作用也更为突出。在刑事案件审查起诉阶段，各国检察官一般都会对证据合法性进行审查判断，以防止控方证据被排除的不利后果。在对控方证据的合法性证明方面，虽然这一证明活动在刑事诉讼的具体发生阶段有所差异，但各国检察官均担负着对控方提出证据的合法性的证明责任。在第三章中，论述了检察机关在自侦案件中如何实现对非法证据的防控和在审查逮捕、审查起诉环节对非法证据排除。在对非法证据范围的认识方面，除了要全面认识非法证据的宏观构成要素外，检察机关还应注意区分非法证据与瑕疵证据的界限、非法证据与讯问策略的界限。明确非法言辞证据中何谓“刑讯逼供等”非法方法，何谓非法实物证据中的“严重影响司法公正”等问题。在非法证据的排除方式方面，我国刑诉法和相关规定设立了绝对排除、裁量排除和无法补正排除三种排除方式；检察机关应根据非法证据的不同形式对三种排除方式区别适用，并应注意对于重复自白、共犯非法证据及不同的“毒树之果”选用不同的排除方式加以排除。在程序性内容方面，检察机关在审前阶段排除非法证据时应履行权利告知义务，审前非法证据排除程序的启动可分为依职权启动和依申请启动两种方式，侦查机关或侦查部门负有对证据合法性的证明责任，证明标准应与庭审阶段检察机关对证据合法性的证明标准一致。第四章内容，以审判阶段检察机关对证据合法性的证明为重点并适当论及审判阶段排除非法证据的程序性内容。审判阶段排除非法证据的程序启动依然包括职权启动和申请启动两种，只是此时可依职权启动非法证据调查程序的主体是法官而非检察官。排除非法证据的动议应尽量在庭前会议中提出，但并不排斥审判阶段提出排除非法证据的动议。证据合法性的证明责任原则上由检察机关承担，但针对不同的非法证据形式证明责任的承担也会有所不同。检察机关应选择合适的证明方式对证据合法性进行证明，并且证明活动必须达到适当的证明标准才能完成。笔者认为，对于绝对排除的非法言词证据应采用“排除合理怀疑”的证明标准，对于裁量排除的非法实物证据可采用“优势证明”的标准。在第五章中，笔者主要论述了检察机关对刑事诉讼过程中排除非法证据进行法律监督的内容。虽然新刑诉法并未对此作出专门规定，但检察机关对刑事诉讼中排除非法证据进行法律监督应是对非法证据排除规则的一种应然理解，也是排除非法证据的最后一道屏障。检察机关对刑事诉讼中排除非法证据的法律监督包括对公诉案件的监督和对自诉案件的监督。对公诉案件的法律监督，又分为对侦查活动中非法取证行为的监督和对审前阶段排除非法证据的监督，对审判阶段的法律监督主要是对人民法院是否严格依法适用非法证据排除规则、保障被告人权利的监督。笔者认为，就刑事诉讼过程中排除非法证据而言，检察机关应以刑事公诉案件的法律监督为主并加强和完善对刑事自诉案件的法律监督。在第六章中，笔者主要论述了以下内容：非法证据排除规则的复杂性和我国检察权权能的多元化特点，决定了检察机关在排除非法证据过程中面临着多种冲突境地，包括排除非法证据的审查与被审查角色的冲突、证据排除与公诉权实现的冲突以及排除非法证据的法律监督与被监督的角色冲突。对于上述冲突需要沿多种进路进行化解，包括密切检警关系、加强律师作用、合理处理检察机关内部分工及对检察权进行合理制约等方面。
[Abstract]:The rule of exclusionary rule of illegal evidence came into being in the case of Weekes v. America, which was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1914. With the exchange and integration of the different countries of the two legal systems, the rule of exclusionary rule of illegal evidence has been adopted by the criminal legislation and criminal justice of the vast majority of the world. The rule of exclusionary rule of illegal evidence has been formally written in China. Under the constitutional system of our country, the procuratorial organ, as the legal supervision organ of the state, not only exercises the power of investigation and public prosecution, but also exercises the authority to supervise the whole course of criminal proceedings. The characteristics of the pluralistic characteristics of the power of procuratorial power of the procuratorial organs of our country and the unique attribute of participating in the whole process of criminal proceedings. The importance, complexity and particularity of the procuratorial organs in criminal proceedings are determined. This paper, taking the procuratorial organs as the angle of view, adopts the method of comparative analysis, value analysis and speculative and empirical methods, to systematically comb and elaborate the relevant contents of the procuratorial organs in the criminal proceedings to exclude the illegal evidence.
In addition to introduction, the main content of the full text is divided into six chapters.
In the first chapter, the author expounds the important role, the theoretical basis and the value orientation of the procuratorial organs in the criminal proceedings. The principle of evidence judgment is the cornerstone of the evidence system of the modern rule of law and is also called the adjudicative doctrine. The legitimacy of the evidence is one of the important connotations of the principle of evidence refereeing. The evidence of quality is often lack of authenticity. The evidence must be demonstrated, the evidence is proved and proved effectively. The procedural sanction theory has been given early attention in the western jurisprudence, procedural sanction is aimed at procedural illegality, procedural illegality may exist at any stage of criminal proceedings, and it is illegal. The rule of exclusionary rule is one of the important means of procedural sanction. According to the constitution of our country, the people's Procuratorate enjoys extensive power and full participation in criminal proceedings in the process of criminal proceedings. According to the provisions of the criminal procedure law of China, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is always throughout the criminal proceedings, which determines the prosecution. The organ can play an important role in the exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings, but it also faces many challenges and conflicts, including the examination of illegal evidence and the conflict of the examined role, the conflict of the elimination of evidence and the realization of the right of public prosecution and the conflict between the legal supervision and the supervised role of the exclusion of illegal evidence; the procuratorial organ excludes the illicit The theoretical basis of evidence should include three contents, namely, the theory of procedural justice, the theory of objective justice and the theory of legal supervision, and the exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings by procuratorial organs not only embodies the value of human rights protection and restriction of public power, but also the objective needs of judicial dignity and judicial credibility.
In the second chapter, the author examines the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in common law and civil law countries, and discusses the role of the prosecutors in the process of eliminating illegal evidence. In terms of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings, the exclusionary rules of the Anglo American legal system are more abundant than the exclusionary rules of the continental law system. In the United States, especially in the United States, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is the most developed. For illicit verbal evidence, because of its serious harm to citizens' constitutional rights, whether it is in the Anglo American legal system or the continental law system, countries generally stipulate compulsory exclusion; for illegal physical evidence, the United States requires the rule of law to be ruled out, while Britain, Germany and Japan will The exclusions of illegal physical evidence are made by the judges. The United States requires the exclusion of the "fruit of poison trees" derived from illegal evidence, while Britain, Germany and Japan generally do not exclude. The specific scope of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence reflects the natural tension between the punishment and the protection of the rights of the protector. In terms of the role of illegal evidence, the procuratorial and police departments of the United Kingdom and the United States are relatively independent and not subordinate to each other. The prosecutor only enjoys a very limited power of investigation and guidance. It will not be involved in the exclusion of illegal evidence at the stage of criminal investigation. And the inspection department in Germany and Japan enjoys leadership in the investigation activities of the police department. And the right of command can effectively prevent the illegal investigation of the police and prevent the illegal evidence taking. In the stage of the examination and prosecution of the criminal cases, the prosecutors of all countries will generally examine and judge the legitimacy of the evidence so as to prevent the negative consequences of the exclusion of the prosecution evidence. Although this demonstration activity varies in the specific stage of the criminal proceedings, the prosecutors in all countries bear the burden of proof of the legitimacy of the evidence proposed by the prosecution.
In the third chapter, the paper discusses how the procuratorial organs realize the prevention and control of illegal evidence in the self investigation cases, the examination and arrest and the elimination of illegal evidence in the examination and prosecution links. In addition to the understanding of the scope of the illegal evidence, the procuratorial organs should also pay attention to the distinction between illegal evidence and defects. The boundary of the evidence, the boundary of the illegal evidence and the interrogation strategy. What is the unlawful method of "extorting the confession by torture" in the illegal verbal evidence, what is the "serious influence on judicial justice" in the illegal physical evidence. In the way of the exclusionary method of illegal evidence, the criminal procedure law and the relevant provisions of our country have set up absolute exclusion, discretion and absence. The three exclusionary methods are excluded by the law, and the procuratorial organs should distinguish the three ways of exclusion according to the different forms of illegal evidence, and should pay attention to the exclusion of the repeated confession, the accomplice of the illegal evidence and the different "fruit of the poison tree" by different methods of exclusion. In the case of legal evidence, the obligation to inform the rights should be fulfilled. The initiation of the pretrial illegal evidence exclusion procedure can be divided into two ways: starting with power and applying for the application. The investigative organ or the investigative department bears the burden of proof of the legitimacy of the evidence. The standard of proof should be consistent with the standard of proof of the validity of the testimony in the trial stage of the trial.
In the fourth chapter, we focus on the proof of the legitimacy of the evidence in the trial stage and appropriately discuss the procedural content of eliminating illegal evidence at the trial stage. The initiation of the procedure for eliminating illegal evidence in the trial stage still includes the starting of the power and the application for the start of two kinds, but it is only at this time that the main body of the illegal evidence investigation procedure can be started in accordance with the authority. It is a judge rather than a prosecutor. The motion to exclude illegal evidence should be put forward in a pre court meeting, but it does not exclude the motion to exclude illegal evidence at the trial stage. The burden of proof of the legitimacy of the evidence is undertaken by the procuratorial organ in principle, but the burden of proof for different forms of illegal evidence will be different. The procuratorial organ should To prove the validity of evidence, and to prove that the activity must reach the appropriate standard of proof, the author believes that the standard of "exclude reasonable doubt" should be adopted for the absolutely excluded illegal evidence, and the standard of "proof of superiority" can be adopted for the discretionary unlawful physical evidence.
In the fifth chapter, the author mainly discusses the contents of the legal supervision of the procuratorial organs for the exclusion of illegal evidence in the process of criminal proceedings. Although the new criminal procedure law does not make special provisions on this, the legal supervision of the procuratorial organs for the exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings should be a clear understanding of the exclusionary rule of the non legal evidence. The last barrier to exclude illegal evidence. The legal supervision of the procuratorial organs to exclude illegal evidence in criminal proceedings includes supervision of public prosecution cases and supervision of cases of private prosecution. The legal supervision of public prosecution cases is divided into the supervision of illegal evidence taking in investigation activities and supervision of the exclusion of illegal evidence in the pre trial stage. The legal supervision of the judgment stage is mainly about the strict application of the illegal evidence exclusionary rule to the people's court and the supervision of the rights of the accused. In the author's opinion, the procuratorial organ should focus on the legal supervision of the criminal prosecution case and strengthen and improve the legal supervision of the criminal prosecution cases. Governor.
In the sixth chapter, the author mainly discusses the following contents: the complexity of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence and the pluralistic characteristics of the power of procuratorial power in our country, which determines that the procuratorial organs are confronted with various conflicts in the process of eliminating illegal evidence, including the conflict between the censorship of illegal evidence and the role of the censorship, the exclusion of evidence and the right of public prosecution. The conflict and the conflict of the legal supervision and the supervised role of the exclusion of illegal evidence need to be resolved along various routes, including close inspection and police relations, the strengthening of the role of lawyers, reasonable handling of the internal division of labor in the procuratorial organs and the rational restriction of procuratorial power.
【学位授予单位】：吉林大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D925.2;D926.3

【参考文献】