On The Judge The Limitations Of Free Evaluatiao Of Evidence

Nanjing Peng Yu case is a typical case of China’s civil litigation field. The case of first instance judgment has been made, has become the focus of attention of the community have a lively discussion of the jurisprudence from a different perspective on the Peng Yu case. From these discussions, we can see that, in the course of a hearing of the case, the judge’s free evaluation of evidence became the focus of the critical and most controversial. The mechanism of the free evaluation of evidence is:The judges in the case proceedings, according to their own life experience and reason, conscience, making it The initiative has been fully exploited. Free evaluation of evidence of this flexibility is undoubtedly a big step forward compared to the stiffness of the statutory evidence. However, it is this flexibility, making the free evaluation of evidence system, once produced have been subjected to questioning and criticism. Free Evaluation of Evidence to the judgment of the evidence, findings of fact, only a solid knowledge of law, the ethics of high quality and trial experienced judges to the system of free evaluation of evidence of benign operation, judge the level of quality has become a key factor in determining litigation fate. Our system of free evaluation of evidence of a late start, the relevant provisions of the legislation is not perfect, the more confusion in the use of free evaluation of evidence in judicial practice, in addition to this stage the quality of our judges to be further improved, resulting in not only the value of free evaluation of evidence is difficult to achieved, this article will be as the starting point, a brief introduction of the system of free evaluation of evidence on the basis of their progress and defects make evaluations, and how to limit the judge’s free evaluation of evidence put forward their own shallow opinions with a view to provide a reference for legislation to improve and judicial application of free evaluation of evidence.This article discusses three main areas:The first part is made of the merits brief problems. First, the merits of the Peng Yu case in detail. Secondly, the combination of Peng Yu case, the judgment would be made free of evidence of judicial personnel problems in the present case, in the judgment of many "common sense analysis consistent with the public’s experience? If left the judges free evaluation of evidence, will result in the judge’s wanton behavior? Where are the boundaries of the judge free evaluation of evidence? Whether it should impose some reasonable restrictions on the freedom of the judge of evidence as well as from what? The freedom of the judges of evidence, they should be based on what kind of system, supervision and relief?The second part is the basic theory of free evaluation of evidence. This section first describes the practical significance of the free evaluation of evidence; followed by History of Free Evaluation of Evidence, including the historical development of the system in the foreign and domestic; once again introduced a free evaluation of evidence system in China’s Civil Procedure, including legislation and judicial practice; Peng Yu case the progress of the system of free evaluation of evidence and defects.The third part is a reasonable limitation of free evaluation of evidence to the judge. This part in the incident and after the three judge’s free evaluation of evidence proposed to limit. Among them, the prior limitations include the main constraints (strict judges access system) and object constraints (rules of evidence); limiting mechanism in the matter, including logic rules and rules of thumb to limit judges free evaluation of evidence, that the standard free heart permit limit, the collegiate system of restrictions on the free evaluation of evidence, the limitations of the open trial system of free proof; post-limiting mechanisms, including the judgment of reason to open and the appeal system. This series of limiting mechanism to prevent the certificate of the judge in mind, unconscionable, and thus play an active role in the system of free evaluation of evidence.