On Admissibility Of Electronic Evidence In Criminal Procedure

With the rapid development of electronic information industry, networking and electron devices have become an integral part of social life. In the legal field, electronic evidence was beginning to reveal evidence of its unparalleled ability, but compared to rest of the world’s electronic information industry is also developed countries, legislation on electronic evidence, China is still not complete, it is not good practice to deal with judicial various problems arise. Back in 2011, when Serving legislator Bangguo Wu announced the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics has been formed, but also pointed out that it itself is not perfect. For now, the legislative framework of a socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics also need a complete electronic evidence law is the law of evidence or even to fill. So, whether it is from a judicial practice or our legal system to build long-term considerations, improvement of electronic evidence rule is imminent.Electronic evidence admissibility rules envisaged in this paper is based on relevance, authenticity and legality led to the exclusionary rule and best evidence rule to aid identification rules. Including all types of rules of evidence related to the limited scope of the discussion within the admissibility of electronic evidence, is not intended to establish the rules of evidence and proof certification system complete sense. In the identification rules, all for the admissibility of electronic evidence identified are based on differences in the basis for the division of the different types of electronic evidence on the basis of human factors and equipment factors in the process of electronic evidence produced influence, be classified as electronically generated evidence, electronically stored evidence and electronic hybrid evidence. Currently type zoned for a variety of electronic evidence, and some with the traditional types of evidence for convergence of electronic evidence into consideration the electronic evidence, e-cards, witness testimony and other electronics; also consider the technical aspects of electronic evidence into data message evidence, evidence and information systems subsidiary of circumstantial evidence. But these classification rules for electronic evidence is currently pending for the establishment of significance, are not grasp its essence. The reason why electronic evidence as a new evidence is singled out because it is compared with traditional physical evidence may be mixed into the subjective factors, compared with the traditional rhetoric of evidence they have considerable objectivity, it is neither appropriate classified as suitable to be classified as physical evidence nor verbal evidence, is a "grotesque." Classification approach used in this paper is to seize the essential characteristics.Based on this classification, for different types of electronic evidence, its authenticity and legality have focused on the identification of illegal exclusion of different mechanisms, such as: electronic storage of evidence because it involves only a factor of human action can be regarded as evidence of rhetoric implementation of the absolute exclusion of illegally obtained; the case of electronic evidence generated entirely by the device, the higher objectivity, can be regarded as the physical evidence obtained illegally if they can make a reasonable explanation or correction not be ruled out. In addition, for evidence related to the legality of electronic evidence finds that in view of the introduction of China’s current system of expert advisor, the effectiveness of electronic evidence obtained through expert There are still some obstacles in the application of law, as a non-professional investigative body itself does not Forensics have qualified to obtain evidence of their legitimacy to be further clarified. For this series of questions, the following will be elaborated, and propose appropriate solutions.