A Model Of Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence

With “the Rule of Eliminate the Illegal Evidence in Criminal Case, and theRule of Examine Evidence in Death Penalty Cases.” Review the provisions of theillegal evidence exclusion once again become the focus of the criminal procedure byeveryone attention. The main purpose of the exclusion of illegal evidence is not onlyto protect the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants, butalso because the legality of the proceedings, the legitimacy of. Although China haspassed laws and relevant judicial interpretation clearly defines illegal evidenceexclusion rule, but also on the specific content set appears to be too general, the rulehas not been a good implementation of. Therefore, how to improve the illegalevidence exclusion rules and make it effective in practice to implement significant.Tin Cheung’s case as a model for China’s exclusion of illegal evidence exclusion ofillegal evidence in judicial practice set an example, the accumulation of experience. Inthis paper, the case as cited in the analysis and evaluation of the case based on the ideaof China’s exclusion of illegal evidence.Text of this paper is divided into four parts, a total of about27,000words.The first part is exclusion the illegal evidence. This part of the introduction ofCheung’s tin case on the basis of the focus, first proposed the exclusion of illegalevidence not only is the suspect, the confession of guilt of the defendant whether toestablish, but also because the legality of investigative procedures, and the question ofthe legality of the investigation procedure should be the exclusion of illegal evidencethe focus of attention. On this basis, the exclusion of illegal evidence is not merely toprotect the legitimate rights and interests of criminal suspects and defendants, but alsobecause the proceedings are legal, proper.The second part analyzes how the exclusion of illegal evidence in the trial. Thissection by Zhang States tin case control, defense, the judge, the behavior assessment,the exclusion of illegal evidence in the litigation process should be controlled, debate,review the results of the tripartite force. First need the court to fulfill its judicial functions, only the court in strict accordance with the law started the illegal evidenceexclusion rules, the award can be illegal evidence; need a lawyer to play the efforts ofhis defense in order to activate the illegal evidence exclusion by mining illegallyobtained evidence, looking for illegal procedure. to safeguard the legitimate rights andinterests of criminal suspects and defendants; need investigative organs in a specificinvestigation activities through legitimate means to fulfill their duties to prevent thegeneration of illegal evidence.The third section should be of concern in the exclusion of illegal evidence, this isthe second part of the problem extended. Our country is the existence of "entity lightprogram" judicial tradition, however, procedural justice should be better thansubstantive justice Therefore, specific judicial practices should not be in pursuit ofsubstantive justice as the ultimate goal should be focused on the pursuit of proceduraljustice. At the same time, in the process of exclusion of illegal evidence the judgeneeds to play a key role, only a judge in strict accordance with the law to excludeillegally obtained evidence, be possible to achieve procedural justice. Finally, weshould known that how to identify the "torture" in practice. Means of "torture" shouldnot be limited to the physical level of injury, should also include the intangible mentaltorture. As long as the investigative organs based on confessions for the purpose of thesuspect, physical, mental torture, caused the suspect physical or mental pain should beconsidered "torture".The fourth part is to exclusion illegal evidence of specific ideas, which is the focusof this article. The analysis in this part incloud two levels:practice and theory. Ofillegal evidence exclusion rule is difficult to carry out an important reason is thepresumption of guilt judicial philosophy deeply rooted, in addition to the trialconfirms the litigation model, illegally obtained evidence is difficult to be excludedfrom the trial. In this case, I believe that in practice require a court to exclude illegalevidence, defense counsel, through the joint efforts of the investigative organs, onlythe control, defense, the judge, their duties, and actively and lawfully fulfill their legalfunctions to be able to make illegally obtained evidence can be ruled out. In thespecific system architecture, they have already established illegal exclusionary rule, first of all to further clarify the exclusion of illegal evidence range, the law should beclear that the connotation and extension of the illegal methods, including what the lawconsiders illegal method, as well as the result of illegal methods. Second, we need tostrengthen the review of the illegal evidence, I believe that the judicial reviewmechanism should be established by the Prosecution and the courts review thepreliminary hearing, prosecutors and judges to protect the illegal evidence can beruled out. The third is to establish safeguards to exclude illegal evidence, whetherjudges, prosecutors, or lawyers, we need to exclude illegally obtained evidenceassume corresponding responsibilities. Finally, to establish security measures toexclude illegal evidence in the process of implementing the exclusion of illegalevidence to set the appropriate system for relief on the rights of victims, the right toimpose sanctions against people.