Study On Issues Exclusionary Rules Of Criminal Prosecution Evidence

In the process of investigation and evidence collection, public prosecution authorities will violate procedural norms, or infringe upon basic litigation rights of relevant people although it doesn't break though laws, whether and within what scope evidence shall be excluded is the core problem which needs to be solved by evidence law.The research scope of the paper mainly introduces and analyzes theory and practice of exclusion of evidence, it debates on present theory discussion and practical development of exclusion of evidence overseas and at home, focuses on relevant problems of Exclusionary Rule of Evidence adopted by our country in practice of criminal litigation and practical operation methods in future, analyzes several possible problems arising in practice, and puts forward corresponding measures. It expects that Exclusionary Rule of Evidence can promote development of role of law by the way of litigation practice.As far as evidence collected by investigation personnel by violating laws concerned, it can be divided into two major categories, namely testimonial evidence and tangible evidence. The former adopts confession of defendant or witness as evidence, and this kind of violation falls within the scope of illegal investigation on people; the latter adopts material evidence and documentary evidence by searching or detaining, which is within the scope of illegal investigation on things.As for illegal investigation on people, legal norms have clearly stipulated specific rules of exclusion. The paper mainly focuses on"non-testimonial evidence"of illegal investigation on things, namely tangible evidence, and discusses on exclusive problems. Therefore, the so-called Exclusionary Rule of Evidence chiefly refers to the rule which judge excludes evidence collected by investigating authorities illegally.Evidence is the core of proving activity in court, which can be said as the core or soul of judgment. Jeremy Bentham, the famous British jurist, once said:"Evidence is the basis of fairness."His words express the importance of evidence in judgment. Whether evidence can prove litigation facts, it needs to be checked by conforming to"legal quality","necessity","credibility"and"sufficiency", which are the four factors of proving standards.It often thinks that litigation system is established on the basis of the theory of knowledge, which believes that the objective world can be known. As any other objective facts, case facts can be known fully. Based on the idea, personnel handling a case can collect, check and judge evidence completely and correctly if they have active attitude, and facts and truth of litigation cases can be found fully.In fact, litigation, especially criminal litigation, is a kind of proving activity of case facts, instead of a general sense of awareness. In principle, court should find out the so-called"absolute true facts"; because of limitation of possibility of human knowledge, to a certain degree, it must admit that fact-finding of court by accomplishing its legal obligations is the so-called determination of"legal fact".From the background of Simpson case, we can see that Exclusionary Rule of Evidence comes from British and American laws, and the system aims at its established rules and exceptions by preventing some kind of evidence from being submitted to jury. In litigation procedure of British and American law system countries established by jury, there is a clear division between judge and jury, judge is responsible for legal problems, and jury decides problems of facts. Before case is submitted to jury, judge shall explain proving standards of case to jury. It can be seen that British and American law system countries regard proving standards as legal problems, because jury of British and American law system countries is the judge finding facts actually and avoids fact-finding to make mistakes. Therefore, it's necessary to exclude evidence which making mistakes.To sum up, this paper holds that the understanding of exclusionary rules in the criminal proceedings of our country should focus on the institutional level of proceedings, namely focus on whether evidence materials are competent to be submitted as the object of evidence investigation in the trial to the court. In other words, the judgment made according to the exclusionary rules has the function of filtering evidence materials before the trial starts and incompetent evidence material may be neither submitted to the court for investigation or debate nor used as the basis of finding of acts. The competent evidence materials may enter the session of court investigation, or the session of strict proof in other words, and are beyond the capacity of exclusionary rules after they enter the session of court investigation. We can clear up the definition only if we do as mentioned above so as to properly follow the court trial preparation procedures and implement the functions of court trial preparation.It is necessary for the law of criminal evidence to set up the basic philosophy that"Only the evidence presented before the court can be used as the basis for the fact finder (judge or juror) to judge whether there is guilt". Therefore, how to select competent evidence from various evidence materials is the basic goal of various evidence rules (such as the confession rules, hearsay rules, exclusionary rules, and associativity rules) of criminal proceedings. On the basis of such consideration, this paper also holds that criminal trial should be based on the principle of evidence judgment, and the finding of facts must be based on the evidence, so the core concept is strict proof rule. In other words, only the competent evidence can be used by the court as the basis of judgment after relevant legitimate investigation has been carried out, and then its value is judged according to the free evaluation of evidence. Secondly, the competence of evidence should be judged and the order and sequence of the judgment should be made in the process of pretrial preparation according to the associativity between evidence and the case in question (for preventing wasting litigation time), legal associativity (for preventing erroneous judgment by the judge), and whether there is exclusion or prohibition of evidence (for implementing due legal process, prohibiting illegal investigation, and protecting human rights). Only the evidence that has been examined according to the above procedures can be submitted as the object of court investigation to the court.The establishment of the abovementioned basic framework of the law of evidence will be favourable for the cognition and understanding of exclusionary rules in the practice, and only such philosophy can prevent incompetent evidence entering the session of court trial so that the defendant's abwehrrecht can be protected and the system of fair trial can be strengthened.