Study On The Exclusion Of Illegal Evidence In Drug Crimes

In judicial practice,the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence have shown different application patterns in different criminal cases.The smuggling,trafficking,transportation,and manufacturing of drugs(hereinafter referred to as drug crimes)cases of illegal evidence exclusion have obvious characteristics,the overall appearance of high-application,low-exclusion "funnel-like" appearance,the highest number of applications to exclude illegal evidence,but the case base is not the largest,and its exclusion rate is lower than the overall level of criminal cases.With this particular aspect as the starting point,can it reveal the characteristics of the exclusion of illegal evidence in drug crime cases,can it further discover the problems therein,which are the key factors affecting the exclusion of illegal evidence in drug crime cases,and their causality? Whether the investigation can provide targeted reform ideas for improving the elimination of illegal evidence in drug cases,especially in the context of the grim situation of drug control and drug control in China,how to grasp the relationship between cracking down on crimes and protecting human rights.The research is of practical significance.Specifically,this study consists of four parts:The first chapter is the particularity of the exclusion of illegal evidence of drug crimes.This chapter advances layer by layer from three aspects: description of form,normative analysis and value discussion.Firstly,after cross-validation of several databases,it was found that the exclusion of illegal evidence in drug crime cases was “funnel-like”.Compared with other criminal cases,the difference between the number of applications for exclusion and the final exclusion was the most obvious.Secondly,the regulatory documents of drug crimes and the rules for the exclusion of illegal evidence have overlapping contents and reflect the normative characteristics.The Criminal Procedure Law emphasizes that the conviction cannot be based solely on the confession of the suspect or the defendant,but the normative documents for drug crimes have made a breakthrough: only the defendant’s confession and the co-defendant’s confession can be used as a basis for verdict.The premise is to exclude illegal evidence,and here the requirements for the exclusion of illegal evidence are higher.Thirdly,in the elimination of illegal evidence of drug crimes,the tension between cracking down on crimes and protecting human rights is even more obvious.The drug crimes policy is strictly enforced and the crackdown is strengthened,while the illegal evidence exclusion rules focus on protecting human rights,which limits the crackdown to a certain extent,and the tension between the exclusion of illegal evidence of drug crimes is shown in one relaxation.In the second chapter,the author analyzes the multiple cases in which drug crimes are excluded.In 356 criminal cases,the confession with the highest exclusion rate,material evidence with an extremely low exclusion rate,and all evidence directed to the application grounds for temptation investigation were selected for research.Firstly,the statement of exclusion: in the proof of the legality of the evidence,there is a problem of the alienation of the burden of proof,and the defendant bears the burden of proof;in the determination of the legality of the evidence,there is a problem of affirming the power of the evidence with probative power;In terms of exclusion criteria,the confession exclusion criteria in the case of interrogation of unsynchronized recordings or incomplete recordings and drug addiction are inconsistent;in the treatment of the exclusion of illegal evidence,the court ruled out the subjective knowing after judging the subjective knowing,Relieving the pressure of the court to fail to convict after excluding illegal evidence.Secondly,the exclusion pattern of physical evidence: there is a dispute over the qualitative nature of the material evidence obtained through illegal undocumented searches,extractions,and seizures;if it is found to be defective evidence and cannot be corrected or reasonably explained,the court will still exclude it with additional conditions.Thirdly,apply for the exclusion of all evidence on the grounds of temptation investigation: In the case of applying for exclusion on the grounds that the nature of temptation investigation is illegal,in most cases the court found that there was no temptation investigation,there was no room for discussion of the legality of the evidence,and a few determined that there was a quantity of temptation.It also acknowledges the legitimacy of the evidence,but grants a concession on sentencing;if it applies to exclude on the grounds that the investigation procedure is illegal,the court reviews the materials outside the court to recognize the legitimacy of the procedure.In the third chapter,the author analyzes the problem of excluding illegal evidence of drug crimes.The problem of the large number of defendants’ applications for excluding illegal evidence exists in drug crime cases,which stems from two major reasons: Firstly,the external incentives,that is,the investigative agency’s temptation investigation of drug offenders in judicial practice,the procedures and the evidence on file The unknown standard of legality caused the defendant to apply for the exclusion of all the evidence on the record.Secondly,the internal drive,that is,the difficulty of identifying subjective know-how and the difficulty of identifying the number of drug crimes in drug crime cases.The instinct to avoid harm strengthened the defendant’s fluke mentality by using proof of dilemma to apply to exclude confession to plead guilty.Drug crimes have the problem of the lack of exclusion of illegal evidence.The shallow reason lies in the phenomenon of alienation,and the deep reason lies in the three major factors restraining the court from eliminating illegal evidence.First,the evidence obtained by the illegal temptation investigation has no basis for review and exclusion,and cannot be ranked objectively.Second,under the severe crackdown policy,the scope of the crackdown on drug crimes has expanded,judicial resources are limited,and the pursuit of crackdown efficiency has excellent crackdown value.It lies in safeguarding the value of human rights,and it is more focused on avoiding the risk of wrongly guilty after the evidence is excluded,and it is subjectively unwilling to exclude.Third,subject to the joint force crackdown mechanism,the exclusion of illegal evidence faces the pressure of the prosecutor,and subjectively doesn’t want to exclude.The fourth chapter is the concept of excluding illegal evidence of drug crimes.China is still facing a grim situation in drug control at this stage.The perfect idea of excluding illegal evidence of drug crimes should be based on this limit,and seek the best balance between cracking down on crime and protecting human rights.It will be carried out from four aspects: First,establish the evidence exclusion of illegal temptation investigation.Rules,stipulating the principles and conditions for the implementation of temptation investigation,based on which the legality of the procedure is determined,and the evidence obtained by illegal temptation investigation is resolutely excluded;second,the rules for the exclusion of evidence obtained by undocumented search are improved,and due process of undocumented search is required,The evidence obtained by undocumented search is subject to the mandatory exclusion model;again,on the basis of improving the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence,supplemented by thematic guidance cases,while strengthening the interpretation and reasoning of exclusionary items of illegal evidence,and realizing the reference role of ordinary cases,Uniform judicial practice;Finally,give lawyers the right to be present during interrogation checks,include synchronized recordings and videos into the scope of lawyers’ review,expand the channels for the discovery of illegal evidence,start the procedure for the exclusion of illegal evidence,and implement the rules for the exclusion of illegal evidence.