Investigating Officers To Testify In Court

In China it is normal for investigators to be absent from court, while it ispervasive in the judicial practice of other countries. To have investigators testify incourt is of significance both in theory and practice, as well as a general trend. Eitherfrom the experience from abroad, or from analysis of the legal, investigators have anobligation as witnesses to testify in court.The investigators appearing in court to testify are the witnesses of the court, whoin favor of neither the accuser nor the accused. Their testimony helps to guarantee thevalidity of the judgment, incarnate the procedure value of criminal suit in the course ofenquiry and interrogation, and realize invaluable social value by encouraging commonwitnesses to testify in court and building up the upright image of the investigators.The rationale is as follows: first, it is the requirement of the Principle of DirectStatement. They state the investigating activity in court, which enables the judge toacknowledge it in person and the court inquiry to be implemented by the means of oralargument and interrogation. Second, it is the requirement of the Principle ofInterrogation in the process of argument. As a witness in court, the investigators haveto be interrogated by the accused and the accused for their investigation as well as theconclusion they reach. Third, it is the requirement of the Principle of Excluding IllegalEvidence. They have to elucidate the validity of their investigation in reply to theinterrogation. Last but not the least, it is the requirement of the Balance Principle inArgument. With their testimony in court, the balance between the accused and theaccuser is achieved and the formers' privilege is protected.Real diagnosis report of investigation shows that judicial world hold the approvalmanner generally, however, in practice only a handful of investigators to testify,investigators not to testify is a very common phenomenon. Furthermore, theinvestigators did not testify have never suffered any adverse legal consequences.Investigators did not testify because the existing gaps in the legislative and the defectsof judicial interpretation; influenced by the criminal prosecution goal and structure; bythe Specific lawsuit system question; by the lawsuit evidence theoretically difference and the traditional legal culture. Under the combined actions from these factors,investigators do not appear in court to testify come into the logical matter in currentChina.Constructing the system of the investigators to appear in court to testify is feasiblein our country. Because, criminal structure's reconstruction provides the basis; thelegislation trend indicates the tendency; the duties of the police provide protection;judicial practice provides experience. Construct the system which suits our countrynational condition including: the legislation should explicitly stipulate investigators'witness qualifications and the cases that investigators testify in court; the legislationshould explicitly stipulate the consequence that the investigators violate obligations totestify; give investigators the fight to refuse certification and establishment thephysical protection system and so on.It is a challenge and an opportunity to investigators and they should havecountermeasures, such as: investigators must discard deep-rooted statements based onconcepts, and develop evidence-based concepts, explore new ways to detect, establishthe new model; we should increase in corresponding police resources, includingmanpower and material resources; and we should improve the investigators 'legalknowledge.