The Use Of Evidence In Criminal Proceedings Defect Investigation Report

On March14,2012, the National People’s Congress approved <Amendment of theCriminal Procedure Code>.(hereinafter referred to as the <2012Criminal Procedure Law>).This bill absorbed two important content from <rules of evidence>, thereby correcting theflaws of evidence rules provisions rose to the height of the state’s basic law. However, if wewant to know how the system run in practice,the need for empirical investigation and research.So, this paper reflect the actual operation of the criminal corrections system defect evidenceresearch report defects in the form of research reports,and this paper has expand the existingproblems in order to improve the legislation. It divided into four parts,a total of about19000words:The first part is a summary of the theory of flaws.evidence in criminal. The first sectiondefines the concept of defective evidence, Conceptually, we can know that defective evidencethere are four characteristics.pointing out that the law gives the fundamental reason why itscorrection-minor illegality; then introduced the range of evidence, and the differencebetween defects of illegal evidence in order to avoid the defective evidence being adoptedas the legal evidence or excluded as Illegal evidence,clear connotation and denotation Fromthese two aspects although,there are omissions in the existing legal provisions related toevidence of flaws procedural rules comparatively omissions, however, running the defectscorrected rules of evidence in practice is the needs for achieving the Litigation purposes andbalancing litigation value, it is also the demand for status of the current justice must,therefore, this part of the final analysis of the evidence for correction of defects due sex.The second part is the Research situation about use of Defect evidence in criminalproceedings. The article first show the form of regional research and investigation,in thispaper, two county court Criminal Tribunal for the research object, taking Empiricalinvestigation by three ways:Scrolling defective evidence files trialed after the implementationof the new Code of Criminal Procedure,sending questionnaires to the court,and talking topractices department staff; then Articles written questionnaire about Judicial personnelcognitive status of Criminal Evidence Defect theory in practice.this questionnaire examinedinvestigators’cognition about the different features between defect evidence and illegalevidence and how they believe the Defect evidence,Proportion of adoption about Evidence Defect correction.Once again it was the investigation about process of Review and adoptionrelate to defect evidence.If the specification of the defective evidence correction program isan important guarantee for the reliability of evidence,So, strictly review on the evidencequalification after correction of the defective evidence is an important guarantee for correctjudgment,This link take research on the adoption of the defective evidence whether needcorrection, subject of starting the defective evidence correction program, The defectiveevidence correction method, The executive body of defective evidence Correction, whetherWhether Executive compensation of people Need to appear in court to explain thesituation,qualification review After correction of defective evidence.defective evidence correction, correction, correction of defective evidence executorexecutor is to appear in court to explain the situation, after correction of defective evidenceevidence qualification review in the aspects of research on program correction situation.Thethird part analyze problem about Correction of defective evidence system First, the judgeidentify defective evidence casually.At present in our country the grass-roots court judge theoverall quality is not high,The judge may have a misunderstanding and abuse of discretion,itis not conducive to the development of procedural justice in China.the second problem is thatThe defendant enjoy right to know and participate without effective protection.As Thecorrection procedure is not transparent,The operation pattern of evidence defect correctionsystem shows the control and relatively closed characteristics,In such circumstances, thedefendant and his counsel it is difficult to know what to participate, easily l easily lead towrong direction.thirdly,the correction means is not standard, to some extent influence thedefect correction evidence effect,in practice,in the situation in the way of evidence of defectcorrection to correct the little imperfections are the vast majority of the evidence to becorrected by a reasonable explanation of the way; fourth is subject to the provisions of thecorrection is not clear enough, lead to real correction executive body underpowered, ourjudge and the judge did not like Western countries have the right to cause the prosecution byissuing a writ for specific acts, the public prosecutor and the public security organs forevidence of defect correction adverse behavior, neither the provisions of relevant laws andregulations appropriate sanctions, and not included in the among both the appraisal system,resulting in two flaws in the evidence on the relative lack of power compensation issues;friths, the correction material is not standardized, the evidence does not meet the statutoryform, and contrary to the principles of cross-examination of evidence.it will not only affect to identify the evidence,but also lead to the correction function of legal norms is difficult to playin the judicial practice; sixth is part of judge defective materials Judge audit is notstrictly,some evidence may provide an opportunity to enter the courtroom, affect the quality ofthe case.The fourth part is defective perfect evidence of criminal corrections system operation.This part of the following five aspects to be perfect evidence of the criminal correctionssystem flaw: the first is evidence of defect correction procedures expressly provided by theprosecution to put forward by the referee judges that the defense could clear intention of theprosecution, while the display respect for the judge jurisdiction; second flaw is correctedprior to evidence a reasonable explanation, the evidence should first be corrected flaws, onlyin the unlikely event that the correction mode can be selected only reasonable explanation;third is a reasonable explanation for the revision and grasp the " degree" of evidence obtainedin compensation, and must be able to eliminate false legitimacy and physical aspects of theprocedural aspects of the evidence may be defective, a reasonable explanation of the groundsto fully and comply with common sense, common sense, common sense; fourth it i to protectthe defendant and his counsel to participate in the correction process rights defectiveevidence; fifth is to strengthen the role of the Court of audit evidence of defects, defectcorrections rules of evidence not perform well in practice, the court plays a key role, andtherefore the court should there is a sense of responsibility and positive as that defectcorrection rules of evidence to better play the role of legal norms in the litigation activities.