On Admissibility Rules Of Criminal Verbal Evidence In China

In some criminal cases, the criminals usually have high literacy and social status. They have a certain anti-investigating and anti-interrogation ability, and they have strong senses of self-protection. Thus, evidence in such cases is not only less, and relatively fragmented, unable to form a complete and sufficient evidence chain to prove the crime, which result in a considerable number of criminals haven't been brought to justice. Therefore, in the case of lacking material evidence, the evidential value of verbal evidence shouldn't be overlooked. It should be used as the breach in investigating such cases. Meanwhile, because of the particularity of verbal eividence itself, whether it could be adopted in criminal procedures and prove the crime, that is to say, whether it is admissible, should follow the rules that is different from material evidence.Through accessing rules of the admissibility of verbal evidence in the Criminal Procedure law and evidence law in Britain, USA, Germany, Japan and so on, the authors mainly explores three rules of the admissibility of verbal evidence in foreign country from three aspects. Specifically, we will compare the three rules in two legal systems, and analyze the specific application.Compared with foreign legislation, there are three deficiencies in the rules of the admissibility of criminal verbal evidence in China. First, there is no specific standard for how to apply the elimination rule for criminal illegal verbal evidence. Second, there is no specific rules for the elimination rule for hearsay evidence in relevant evidence legislation in China. Third, for the rules of opinion evidence, there are less rigorous and unreasonable regulations about the admissibility of common witness in the relevant evidence legislation in China.Therefore, the author holds that, we could perfect the relevant legislation about admissibility of criminal verbal evidence from three aspects. First, perfect the elimination rule for criminal illegal verbal evidence. Not only need the specific standard of obtaining evidence in an unlawful way being explicitly stipulated, but also the investigators'"curve"way of obtaining evidence in two conditions and the responsibility of lauching the investigation of the validity of evidence should also be clearly specified. Second, establish rules for the elimination rule for hearsay evidence. We should explicitly stipulate the admissibility of the record of testimony of those witnesses who don't appear in court. And verbal evidence handed over by criminal investigation organ could be regarded as hearsay evidence; in legeal circumstances, investigators should take the stand for the relevant situation. Last but not the least, perfect rules of opinion evidence. The standard of the admissibility of common witnesses'opinion evidence and its application should be clearly specified.