The Empirical Investigation Of "Case Explanation" In Criminal Iitigation

In recent years, with the practice of Administration of justice of china, a considerable amount of evidence material that in the name of"case explanation"has produced. Due to the use of"case explanation"by the Investigators is not cleared, and the study of it is weak, as a result, the people can't clear about the legal nature of"case explanation", a fortiori, to deeply analyze the function and negative effects in criminal judicial practice, especially in the field of the criminal evidence law. Therefore,under the background of the implementation of the two provisions there is profound significance to research"case explanation"in criminal proceedings. This paper chooses the "criminal litigation case" as its research object, based on its theory, firstly review on the debate point of"case explanation", the legal nature. And then combining the investigation data and cases educe the author view on the legal nature of "criminal litigation case". On that basis, it further analyzes the functions and problems of"case explanations". Finally it proposes legislation some suggestions to improve"case explanation". The paper has three main parts, totaling more than 25,000 words.The first part is the theory basis of"case explanation"in criminal proceedings. Firstly it analyzes the legal nature of"case explanation". The author thinks that the"case explanations"is not the determining evidence, it is an evidence material. Its form is investigation record. Then it analyzes functionality of"case explanation"."Case explanation"can make legal facts approach case objective facts as quickly and efficiently as possible. It can reinforce the evidence that not probative enough. And it can supplement and correct the flawed evidence, so that it can be adopted. Also"case explanation"can strengthen the restriction of the three authorities, the public security bureau, the procuratorate, and courts. Through process of investigating and eliminating of"case explanation", it can strengthen the procuratorial organs'investigation supervision and the court judicial review functions.The second part points out the problem of"case explanation"used in criminal lawsuits. First,"case explanation"easy to make it fail to get illegal evidences ruled out effectively. The law and the relevant provisions haven't definitely pointed out, whether the supplement and correct evidences should be confronted or not. So that the prosecution takes an advantage of that, supplements lots of flawed evidences which are disadvantage to the defendant, so much as make use of the flawed evidence to cover up the illegal evidences, use the supplements as corrections to the illegal evidences. That makes the illegal evidence which should have been eliminated be adopted. Second there are fiddled phenomena when the investigators take the"case explanation". Some investigators produce"case explanation"too arbitrarily, even concoctive facts, as they are the judge of their own cases. The investigators always forge the"case explanation"to cover up the illegal way of obtain the evidence and the judicial malfeasances, to avoid punishment or disciplinary action. Third there are phenomena of infringing the defendant right to confrontation when take the"case explanation". Because there is no stipulation to the"case explanation"supplement and correct evidence, that makes its legitimacy not be cross-examined and reviewed.The third part gives some suggestions to improve"case explanation". The key point to improve the use and solve the problem of"case explanation"is to guarantee the defendant's right to confrontation. First, it should establish the principle of direct verbal trial without other meanings. By implementing the judge's"hands on", it cuts off the directly contact between the prosecution's record roll and the judicial referee, to ensure the defense cross-examination right. And that makes it possible to effectively regulate the investigators testify system and establish the rules of supplementing and reinforcing the flawed evidences. Second, the"files record centralism"judgment model in the criminal procedures and the limited direct, words principles which installed by Rules of conducting a death penalty case evidence are the System obstacles to the establishment of direct, single words principles. In succession the investigators testify system should be improved. It helps to discover the real case fact, ensure the cross-examining right of the defense, and specify the investigators forensics behavior.