The Study Of The Judge Enforcement Power Out Of Court In Criminal Procedure

《The Criminal Procedure Code》 came into force in1,January2013while the right of investigation of judge court is still to be retained, which indicates the right has its need to be present currently. To start the investigation analysis, this paper made from the meaning and value of foreign judges’ right by comparing the relevant provisions of other countries summed revelation, then in order to put forward a sound approach, analysis of targeted domestic situation and problems will be noticed.The article is divided into four parts connotation and value, begins with the right to judge court investigation, which is defined as the judge speaking as a judge in criminal proceedings, in order to fulfill the duties ascertain the facts, in order to fulfill the applicable law to confirm the exact control responsibilities criminal trial which is established by carrying out its own investigations based on evidence presented in court by the prosecution and the defense that were verified and power trade-offs. Then by comparing the relationship between the judge and the court of investigation and evidence collection rights the article indicates the difference bettween lawyers and prosecutors investigating the investigative powers, leads to a four-court judge investigating the value of the right to exist, that is conducive to the interests of the defendant, in favor of the public law remedy literacy deficiencies, help identify the facts of the case and is conducive to the pursuit of physical real protection.The second part introduces the adversary mode, inquisitorial court judges investigating mode and mixed mode, which comes to this conclusion that further demonstrates of the necessities of external judges’ investigative powers existing in our country, and proposed that China should learn from the experience.The third part of the article analyzes the positioning of foreign judges’ investigative power system in China, the current situation and the specific problems. The judicial status quo can be classified into three points. Firstly, judicial discretion is too easily controlled which leads to trial violates the principle of separation; secondly, the overly pursuit of true value turns to miss real program entity value; Thirdly, the judge plays a dual role violated the principle of neutrality.Four measures are set forth in the fourth paragraph, of the perfect first-mentioned principle of the guidelines is to endeavor to comply court investigation activities, which states that a judge shall endeavor to comply five principles, namely the principle of neutrality, the principle of enabling the defendant, exhaustive principle, the principle of verification and the prosecution and defense forces to maintain a balanced party principles. Secondly, the judge proposed to limit the court to review the means and hold fast to the judges to carry out procedures to carry out border and strict judge court review of court review, where judges and court investigations, including the application of review procedures which to start outside the court investigation procedures and conduct surveys conducted court procedures.