我国刑事证据印证规则运用研究

发布时间：2018-06-08 19:54

本文选题：刑事证据 + 印证规则　；参考：《辽宁大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：证据为诉讼之本,没有证据就无法认定案件事实,无法认定案件事实何谈判决。而证据的发展离不开证据规则,证据规则对证据的可采性和证明力作出限制,统一证据运用标准的同时助于查明事实。证据间相互印证一直以来是我国刑事司法证明过程中普遍运用的方法,理论界也用“印证模式”来概括我国司法证明的整体方式。2012年《最高人民法院关于适用刑事诉讼法的解释》中构建了作为证明力要求及通过证据相互印证达到证明标准的证据印证规则,使证据相互印证从实践中常用的方法上升为采信单一证据和根据间接证据认定案件事实的一项规则。但对“印证”的研究还停留在对“印证模式”的分析上,对具体印证规则的研究较少。作为司法实践中被广泛应用的印证规则,其自身在运用过程中存在很多值得研究的内容。本文通过对印证规则的界定,厘清其与印证模式的关系,阐明了印证规则的具体内容。将其与口供补强规则、自由心证原则进行对比,便于对印证规则有更清晰的认知。证据相互印证作为行之有效的司法实践经验,其遵循了事物存在和诉讼认知规律,符合我国的司法审判实践,因此被确立为印证规则。但实践中仍存在运用印证规则却造成冤假错案的情况,对此反思了操作过程中出现的问题。主要可归纳为印证前忽视对证据能力的限制,运用印证规则过程中的形式化且不重视无罪证据,运用后又缺乏对形成印证的说理。针对这些问题,对实践中印证规则的规范运用提出自己的观点:印证前对证据准入资格进行审查而不是对控方证据全盘直接采纳;印证规则运用过程的实质化;充分重视辨方的无罪证据以保障辨方的对质权,强化裁判文书的说理环节。望对印证规则的规范运用可以帮助我们清晰地采纳证据,准确地认定案件事实以实现司法公正。
[Abstract]:Evidence is the basis of litigation, without evidence, can not identify the facts of the case, can not determine the facts of the case. The development of evidence can not be separated from the rules of evidence. The rules of evidence restrict the admissibility and the power of proof and unify the standard of evidence application to help to find out the facts at the same time. Mutual confirmation of evidence has always been a common method used in the process of criminal judicial proof in our country. In 2012, the interpretation of the Supreme people's Court on the Application of Criminal procedure Law set up the requirement of proof as proof and the evidence to achieve proof through mutual confirmation. Clear standard rules of proof, It is a rule that the evidence can confirm each other from the commonly used method in practice to adopt a single evidence and determine the facts of a case according to the indirect evidence. However, the study of "confirmation" is still focused on the analysis of "verification mode", and the research on concrete verification rules is less. As a widely used confirmation rule in judicial practice, there are many contents worth studying in the process of its application. This paper clarifies the relationship between the verification rules and the verification model, and clarifies the concrete contents of the verification rules through the definition of the verification rules. It is easy to have a clearer understanding of the corroboration rule by comparing it with the rule of confession reinforcement and the principle of free heart-proof. As an effective judicial practice experience, evidence follows the law of existence of things and cognition of litigation, and conforms to the judicial practice of our country, so it is established as the confirmation rule. However, in practice, there are still cases where the application of the verification rules results in unjust and false cases, which reflects on the problems in the operation process. It can be concluded that the limitation of evidence ability is ignored before verification, the formalization in the process of verification rules is used, and the innocent evidence is not attached importance to, and there is a lack of reasoning for the formation of proof after the application. In view of these problems, the author puts forward his own views on the normative application of the corroboration rules in practice: the examination of the qualification of the admission of evidence before verification rather than the direct adoption of the evidence of the prosecution, the essence of the process of the application of the verification rules; Pay full attention to the defense's innocent evidence to protect the defense's right to pledge and strengthen the reasoning link of the judgment document. It is hoped that the normative application of the corroboration rules can help us to adopt evidence clearly and identify the facts of the case accurately in order to realize judicial justice.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D925.2

【参考文献】