Criminal Judgment Of Res Judicata Study

Res judcicata is the resource of related doctrines of criminal procedure, such as ne bis in idem principle, prohibition against double jeopardy, autrefois rule, etc, and determines the main contents under different terms, that is, a) things finally adjudged; b) a defense against retrial. The differences of terms and regulations among countries are caused by different historical traditions, legal surroundings and social conditions. This dissertation is divided into 6 chapters. It begins from the discussion of fundamental theories about res judicata, to its elements, and then the settlement of related theoretical and practical problems. The following problems are discussed in this paper: a) whether the decision of the former case is res judicata for the latter prosecution when the two cases overlaps; b) how to set up exceptions to res judicata and the related retrial procedure when the two cases are identical or substantially identical; c) what effect the former criminal judgment has on the following civil procedure, and what effect the former civil judgment has on the following criminal procedure about the same facts. Chapter 1, the fundamental theory of res judicata, emphasizes on its contents, history and essence, and investigates the related regulations of some countries and international society. In essence, res judicata represents substantial finality of judgment, which is the embodiment of substantial law in the form of judgment. At the same time, res judicata binds criminal procedures through final judgment. Chapter 2, the foundations of res judicata and its exceptions, aims to settle such a dilemma with balancing theory. On the one hand, res judicata effect of final judgment, even the fault judgment, should be maintained. On the other hand, exceptions to res judicata should be permitted. The ultimate objective of criminal procedure to keep the order of law has decided whether to correct wrongful judgment. Ordinarily speaking, the exceptions to res judicata can only be permitted when there are so obvious substantial faults that the justice of law will be destroyed. Keeping the order of law will definitely confront the conflicts between substantial law and procedural law, neither of which will has the priority. A judgment is thought to be fair when the procedural rights of the parties are fully guaranteed. For the purpose of fair procedure and the properly settlement of disputes, the finality of judgment can not be blindly insisted if there are some serious defects of substantial matters proved by evidence. Thus, the retrial procedure based on substantial justice should be permitted. In criminal procedure, all values, such as the protection of the accused, the finality of judgment and the efficiency of procedure should be balanced. The finality of judgment is ordinarily thought to be helpful to the protection of the accused and efficiency of procedure, but when there are some serious faults which will badly influence the protection of the accused, the exceptions to res judicata should be permitted. Chapter 3, the form of res judicata, mainly focuses on final judgment on substantial issues, and the scope of judgments with res judicata effect in China. In civil law countries, judicial decisions are analyzed by its functions, and only those which have concluded a criminal procedure will be subject to res judicata. And for the reason that res judicata is about the issues in dispute, only those decisions on substantial issues can be subject to res judicata. In common law countries, there is no distinction about the forms of judicial decisions, so all kinds of decisions, such as judgment, decree, order, sentencing, judicial declaration and other judicial decisions will be res judicata on the basis of two preconditions: validity and finality. It is possible and necessary to corporate res judicata effect of judicial decisions in China. Under the current legal systems and regulations, the res judicata effect of judicial decisions should be confirmed. The substantial issues settled by final decisions can only be ret...