Study On Several Issues Concerning Criminal Evidence Discovery System

Discovery of evidence is an important system in criminal litigation. It refers to the system that the two parties concerned make the evidence they have and control known by the other party in appropriate means according to certain rules before the court begins to hear the case during the process of litigation. Discovery of criminal evidence refers to the system that the prosecuting party and the defendant make the evidence they have and control known by the other in appropriate means according to certain rules before the court begins to hear the case during the process of criminal litigation. Criminal evidence discovery system originates from general law tradition. It develops more specific and more mature and undergoes many resistance in actual practice and heated discussions in theory. Because criminal evidence discovery system embodies the pursuit of value concepts, such as justice, efficiency etc in criminal procedure and plays an important procedural function in guaranteeing justice of litigation, improving efficiency of litigation and so on, it is paid increasing attention in all the countries. At present, in British and American law system countries that adopt litigation mode of doctrine of parties in tradition, such as Britain and America, complete criminal evidence discovery system is prescribed in means of statute law, court rules or case law. While in continental law system countries that adopt litigation mode of doctrine of authority in tradition, such as France and Germany, there is regulations concerning discovery of evidence in legislation of criminal procedure and criminal evidence discovery system is established conforming to litigation mode of doctrine of authority. Criminal Procedure Law before amendment had established evidence discovery system. However, when Criminal Procedure Law was amended in 1996, judgment procedures and litigation procedures were not closely linked in relevant system setup, because theoretical foundation was inadequate, legislative technique was immature and was not improved timely. This rupture in procedure frequently leads to the phenomenon that the prosecuting party and the defendant present unexpected evidence to each other in court hearing in judicial practice. After reform, the court hearing method of confrontation system is in nature the same as before but in new form. The imperfection of criminal evidence discovery system is one of the important factors. Therefore, as the criminal court hearing method of interrogation system dominated by the judge shifts to confrontation system dominated by the prosecuting party and the accused, it is urgent to solve the problem of improving evidence discovery system in criminal procedure in our country. In criminal procedure, just values mainly embody four aspects, that is, publicity of litigation procedures, participation of subjects of rights and interests, equality of subjects of rights and interests and neutrality of the judge. In other words, the standards of judging whether criminal litigation procedures are just are principle of publicity, principle of participation, principle of equality and principle of neutrality. As an important system in criminal procedure, the operational mechanism of discovery of evidence contains the pursuit of just values in criminal procedure. Besides, discovery of evidence not only demonstrates just values of criminal procedure, but also is closely related to efficiency values of criminal procedure, so its design and operation also demonstrate the pursuit of efficiency values of criminal procedure. First, discovery of evidence conforms to economic rationality of operation of criminal procedure. It can effectively shorten litigation period, powerfully promote the operation of simple procedures, optimize allocation of litigation resources and satisfy expectations and requirements of criminal procedure efficiency of subjects of rights and interests. As a coexisting litigation system in modern criminal procedure, discovery of evidence is closely related to its mode of procedure. In different modes of criminal procedure, the design and setup of evidence discovery system embody different features and reflect different conceptions of litigation. The mode of criminal procedureof doctrine of parties is mainly adopted in countries of British and American law system in modern times. In these countries, criminal evidence discovery system is paid adequate attention and fully developed. There are provisions concerning obligation, scope, time, status and function of the court, legal effects, specific operation and therefore a complete system forms. In mode of doctrine of authority, the main content of evidence discovery system is the right of reviewing files of the accused. Because the right of evidence collection of the defendant is limited to a great extent, it is important to guarantee right of reviewing files of the defendant and thus the defendant can effectively defend. In legislation of France and Germany, mode of litigation of doctrine of authority pays much attention to right of reviewing files of the defendant, there are detailed provisions in law and their criminal evidence discovery system concentrates on rights of reviewing files of the defendant. This shows that mode of litigation of doctrine of authority gives sufficient respect and guarantee to right of defense of the accused. Compared with fore-amendment, a major reform in Criminal Procedure Law is that method of court hearing changes from interrogation system dominated by the judge to confrontation system dominated by the prosecuting party and the defendant. Court hearing method of confrontation system requires weakening functions of the judge. It gives prominence to role of procedure promoter of the prosecuting party and the defendant and emphasizes evidence presentation of the prosecuting party and the defendant in court, cross-examination in our, attestation and judgment of the judge in court. This requires that the prosecuting party, the defendant and the judge shall be equipped with higher legal accomplishments, that the law shall prescribe perfect evidence discovery system and that the prosecuting party and the defendant shall sufficiently exchange evidence information before court hearing. Therefore, court hearing of confrontation system can carry on smoothly. However, there are various deficiencies in criminal evidence discovery system in our country. These deficiencieslead to that method of court hearing of confrontation system can not carry on smoothly and the two parties cannot confront. On the whole, criminal evidence discovery system in our country does not conform to method of court hearing of confrontation system at all. The specific manifestations are: legal provisions are too simple; scope of evidence discovery narrows and function of defense of lawyer reduces; right of discretion of "major evidence"of the prosecuting party is too big so that unexpected presentation of evidence may occur; the defendant does not assume the liability of discovery so that unexpected presentation of evidence may occur; there is no regulations concerning legal effects of violating obligation of evidence discovery and the court does not have right of judicial inspection of evidence discovery. The above-mentioned problems in criminal evidence discovery system in our country are not helpful for the smooth development of criminal procedural activities and they are urgent to be reformed and improved. This paper studies and analyzes foreign criminal evidence discovery system and this may act as reference to improve criminal evidence discovery system in our country. In terms of construction of evidence discovery system in our country, we shall combine foreign legislative experience with our national status and emphasize on the protection of interests of the suspect and the accused to make it support the reform of judgment method of confrontation and helpful for the realization of criminal procedural purpose and judicial justice.