“王朝案”中的證據(jù)法難題及其破解
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-08 19:03
【摘要】："王朝案"的發(fā)生引發(fā)了三個(gè)證據(jù)法上的疑難問題:一是證據(jù)的合法性問題,主要涉及偵查人員無管轄權(quán)取證的效力問題;二是瑕疵證據(jù)的補(bǔ)正和合理解釋"度"問題;三是證據(jù)采信的公正性問題,尤其是特殊偵查措施所獲證據(jù)應(yīng)否公開質(zhì)證的問題。從證據(jù)法理上講,偵查機(jī)關(guān)雖然違反管轄權(quán)而取證,但若并未侵犯被追訴人公正審判權(quán),所獲證據(jù)自無排除之必要;瑕疵證據(jù)的補(bǔ)正或合理解釋"度",以確證瑕疵證據(jù)的客觀性和真實(shí)性為已足;特殊偵查措施所獲的證據(jù)材料,雖然可以不向公眾公開,即實(shí)行不公開審理,但卻必須向辯方公開特殊偵查的結(jié)果,并允許辯護(hù)人參與該證據(jù)的質(zhì)證過程。
[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.
【作者單位】： 四川大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：教育部“新世紀(jì)優(yōu)秀人才支持計(jì)劃”資助項(xiàng)目“隱形刑事訴訟法2”(編號(hào):NCET-10-0602)
【分類號(hào)】：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.
【作者單位】： 四川大學(xué)法學(xué)院;
【基金】：教育部“新世紀(jì)優(yōu)秀人才支持計(jì)劃”資助項(xiàng)目“隱形刑事訴訟法2”(編號(hào):NCET-10-0602)
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2;D920.5
【共引文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 滕山嶺;;完善刑事附帶民事訴訟制度——對(duì)刑事附帶民事訴訟制度現(xiàn)狀的認(rèn)識(shí)和構(gòu)想[J];青春歲月;2011年16期
2 萬毅;;解讀“非法證據(jù)”——兼評(píng)“兩個(gè)《證據(jù)規(guī)定》”[J];清華法學(xué);2011年02期
3 李文華;淺議立案程序及其改革[J];青海民族學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年01期
4 李娜玲;劉晗敏;;程序性辯護(hù)之憲政根基[J];求索;2009年03期
5 陳懷安;論刑事強(qiáng)制措施的限制、適度適用與制度完善[J];人民檢察;2005年16期
6 曲衛(wèi)東;;坦白從寬在刑事訴訟程序上的體現(xiàn)[J];人民檢察;2011年20期
7 王，
本文編號(hào)：2231414
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/fashilw/2231414.html
最近更新
教材專著
