Research On The Procedures Of Excluding Illegal Evidence

Exclusionary rule, usually refers to criminal proceedings, the investigating authorities and their staffto use illegal means to obtain the rules of evidence in criminal trials should not be adopted. Theexclusionary rule is embodied in the criminal evidence system of human rights protection, but also animportant indicator of a country’s judicial civilization. In today’s world, most of the modern law countriesgenerally adopted this rule to guide judicial practice. Prior to2010, our country, in terms of theexclusionary rule of law is still in the blank period, only a number of legal experts and scholars on thetheory established or not established or conditionally also discussed the establishment of the rule ofexclusion of illegally obtained evidence. Until July1,2010issued " on the handling of death penalty casesreview the evidence to determine the provisions of a number of issues " and " handling criminal cases on anumber of issues of illegal evidence exclusion rules ", which marks the formal establishment of illegalevidence exclusion rules. The new Code of Criminal Procedure of2013enacted this provision isestablished on a legal level. However, since the enactment of the two rules of evidence after facing a seriesof legislative and practical difficulties in implementing the problem, coupled with the current regulationsin China is still in the preliminary stages of establishment, it is inevitable there will be inadequate. Basedon this, we want to illegal evidence exclusion legislation and its implementation rules were studied andfound its shortcomings, thereby improving its research.A total of this article is divided into three parts. The first part is to investigate the illegal evidenceexclusion program overview. Including the concept of illegal evidence: Meaning of illegal evidence, thescope of illegal evidence; illegal evidence exclusion program concept: related to start-up mode, thereview body, the burden of proof and pre-trial procedures. The main purpose of writing this section is toclarify some of the concepts of illegal evidence exclusion program. The second part is to investigate theimplementation of the plight of illegal evidence exclusion program. This part of the main program isintercepted five existing problems are discussed. Which include lack of definition of the scope of illegalevidence is less clear: no clear evidence of the extent of illegal words, fuzzy scope and the lack ofphysical evidence of illegal fruit of the poisonous tree problem; investigative authority to review the subject as unreasonable; prosecutors prove a more general standard; trial the trial is not fully independentand related auxiliary programs imperfect: audio and video recording systems and related systemswitnesses. The main purpose of writing this section is to point out the illegal evidence exclusion currentlyapplies the problems. The third part is to make some sound advice on the basis of the details of theprevious two parts. Five for the second part of this section is mainly made up less than one in five caremade perfect views. Specifically including the scope of clear evidence of illegal recommended prosecutorsinvolved in guiding the investigation and evidence collection, prosecutors recommended standard of proofconcrete, set up an independent review of the evidence suggested atrium and improve the relevant supportprogram, specifically including synchronized audio and video recording system, investigators testify incourt system improved interrogation system, improve the disciplinary system and illegal compensationsystem forensics. The main purpose of writing this part is to be more perfect in the details of illegalevidence exclusion program."Two rules of evidence" and the new "Code of Criminal Procedure" were introduced, although it isillegal evidence exclusion laid the basis for the theory and the legislative, judicial practice, but similarinjustices still occur, similar to the illegal evidence are still very present. Therefore, to solve this problemand not just a legal or judicial interpretation of a few can be solved, theory and practice still needs tocontinue to explore and improve.