Study Of The Criminal Trial, Evidence Investigation System

Evidence Investigation in criminal trial both has the faction to realize procedural fair and the faction to find out the facts, in addition it also has the faction to redress a wrong. To set up a perfect model of evidence investigation and to build corresponding system will not only uphold the procedural fair, but also find out the truth. This have great practical meaning for reducing unnecessary appeal, improving efficiency, lessening the burden of judicial organ. This essay is on criminal evidence investigation, adopting reasoning and comparative studies to discuss the principal sector, the object, the model and the difference between various countries'rules, basing on the results to analyze our evidence investigation system.In addition to preface and conclusions, the essay is divided into three parts, and about 33,000 words.PartⅠis an outline. After defining concept of evidence investigation in criminal trial, the author analyses the principal sector and object of evidence investigation, the forms of evidence investigation system, the characteristic of evidence investigation. The author believes judge is one of the principal sectors, and holds this true that object is evidence material.PartⅡis to compare different countries evidence investigation system. The author establishes three models of evidence investigation, then, compares the difference between the Anglo-American Law System countries, England and US, the Civil Law System countries, France and Germany, as well as mixed-model countries, Italy and Japan. Evidence instigation in System of Anglo-American Law is based on parties, parties have rights to decide both the scope and the sequence of evidence investigation, so it manifests model of case leading evidence. Otherwise, Evidence investigation in Civil Law System is based on judge, judge has more rights in trial, being in a positive and initiative role, bearing to find out the truth, so it manifests model of doubt leading evidence. The author believes the reasons of the differences are these factors: the difference of lawsuit idea, referee system and pretrial procedural rules safeguards.PartⅢis questions in our country criminal evidence investigation and how to rebuild. The questions are:①determine the scope and sequence of evidence no established rules;②judge has so more rights in trial that invading defendants to perform rights;③identification of the accused before evidence investigation is unreasonable and it makes no relevant evidence into the evidence investigation;④the procedure of interrogating accused has some problem;⑤witness furnishes evidence by written not to appear in court, which is unreasonable. Improving our evidence investigation should both build periphery system and establish a perfect evidence investigation system. The author unequivocally proposes establishing parties controlling and limiting judge's rights model of evidence investigation, properly limiting judge's rights in trial, believing that judge's rights in trial ought to keep unpretentious. We should build the rules that launching evidence investigation would be according to both parties'applications, two sides have rights to put forward the scope and sequence of evidence; in procedure, evidence investigation should be separated from trial debate as an independent procedure; perfecting the procedure of questioning defendant, if defendant want to state the details, it should be after questioning all the other witness; legislating the principle of free intention, establishing the ruling adjudication should be according to public trial records. Through building the model of parties controlling and limiting judge's rights, perfecting corresponding system, we can realize the procedural fair and finding out truth.Thanks a lot to supervisor SUN, she gives me many helpful clues. Because of Limited research material, knowledge shallow, in the essay the shortcoming and wrong are possibly more, cordially invite teachers to point out.