The Study On The Rule Of Relevant Evidence In Criminal Prosecution

Evidence is the important ruler in the litigation. It is incapable to find out the fact and to solve a dispute if there is no evidence. The rule of the evidence is the operating principle. It is practical, regular and efficiency. The scholars home and abroad put much energy into the study, and have made great progress. However the practice is behind. Because there is no rule, the judge decides the case by experience and sense. This will influence the stable and the serious. The judge has the huge power to decide the case.The rule of the relevant evidence in the criminal procedure is the most important rule. It is based on the relevance of proof. The relevance is the intrinsic nature of the proof, so the rule has great value. Choosing the subject as the graduation dissertation is reasonable.Though there are great achievements in the study, no scholar discusses the rule in system particularly. The majority interpret it as a word "irrelevant evidence inadmissible". There is no practical. So choosing the subject is also difficult. It will benefit the legislation working on this rule.There are three parts in the dissertation:In part one the author introduce what the relevance of proof and what the rule of the relevant evidence. The author analyzes the debate on the relevance of proof, and brings up the understanding of his own. The author thinks the relevance is an objective character, is the essence of the proof. The form of the relevance is varied. The essence of the relevance is not only the qualifications of the proof but also the value of the proof. The author settles how to confirm the relevance between the proof and the fact. The rule of the relevant evidence is about the relevance of the proof. It includes which proof has relevance with the fact, which proof has not relevance with the fact, whether the proof that has no relevance should be adopted, and some proof that has no relevance also should not be adopted. It is not only the rule about the qualifications of the proof but also the value of the proof. It has the same the similar and the difference between the relevance and the rule of the relevant evidence. The latter is based on the former, it is impossible to build the latter if departing from the former. However the relevance is not the whole of the rule of the relevant evidence. It must reflect the integrated value in the procedure. It is necessary to establish the rule of the relevant evidence according to the legislation tendency inside and outside, the demand of governing by law.In part two the author discuss the value of the rule of the relevant evidence. The rule reflects not only punishment but also protection It embodies the value of justice, equity, and efficiency. Furthermore, the rule has an actual meaning. It guides the collection of the evidence during the beginning of the suit. It can help the investigation and the identification of the proof. It will be reasonable to use the judiciary resources by the rule. It can reduce the unnecessary work and the judicial cost.Part three is the heart and core in the article. It is essential to construct the rule not in essence but also in form. First the author analyzes some normal conditions in the criminal case. Then decides which evidence is admissible. The author constructs the rule of the goods, time, place, behavior and personality. According to the rule, the illegal evidence, hearsay, suggestion, special oral testimony are inadmissible. Some relevant evidences should be excluded on grounds of prejudice, confusions, or waste of time.The article tries hard to make progress as below:Affirm what is relevance and what is the rule of the relevance. Break through the limitations in the past. Think the rule not only involve in contents but also in form. Admit it is a rule to apply to the suit including the qualification and the worth. Some relevant evidences should not be adopted because it is not fit in with the rule. In the contrary, some evidence having the qualification should be excluded on grounds of prejudice. In...