Study On The Investigators To Testify In Court

In order to protect the rights of citizens, to prevent miscarriages of justice, Chinese Criminal Procedure Law established the The Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence. The System for investigators to testify in court plays the key role of this rule. The New Criminal Procedure Law Article 57 paragraph 2、Article 187 provide legal basises for investigators to testify in court, but this two articles only legally determine the system for investigators to testify in court. They don’t comprehensively stipulate how to operate, what problems they may meet and how to resolve these problems. All of these make the system not practical. In addition, there are still some problems in theory in Investigators to Testify In Court System. For example, the ways to define the identity of the investigators in the court, imperfection of investigators ‘testifying starting modes, the scope of the investigation personnel shall appear in court, supporting measures of investigators in the court, etc. There are also no clear provisions for how to deal with the investigators who refuse to be in court and how to ensure their safety. prove the investigators to testify in court system is not only conducive to the implementation of the illegal evidence collection behavior of investigators to expose, the exclusion of illegal evidence, and the protection of the legitimate rights of the accused, but also can effectively support the prosecution and improve the efficiency of lawsuit. The system for investigators to testify in court is not perfect, the Exclusionary Rule of Illegally Obtained Evidence will not be observed and carried out well. This makes the concept of "the punishment of crime equals to protection of human rights " in the criminal procedure law cannot be carried out well, and it is difficult to achieve the purpose of protection of human rights. Therefore, it is an urgent task to improve the investigators to testify in court system. This article takes "the United States federal rules and the rules of evidence", "the California evidence code" and "1984 investigators and criminal evidence law" occurring in the Anglo-American law system as examples and analyzes the relevant provisions of the law on criminal investigators to testify in court system. Comparing to the theory and the actual operation of the system in the continental law system, we can find some important inspirations in making the obligations and responsibilities of investigators clear and definite, making the testifying procedures and verbal evidence handling procedures of investigators normative and other aspects. The author did a lot of actual visits and tracking study in some cases, and found that the investigator testify in court system has the following problems in practice: 1, the identity conflict between the investigators and the witness; 2, Witness status of investigation personnel has not been established; 3, the conflict of "case explanation" and "testifying"; 4, The applicable scope for investigators to testify is too small, and starting modes are not perfect; 5, the low rate of the investigators’ testifying in the court; 6, The right of cross examination of the security is not in place; 7, The exclusion of illegal evidence is difficult. In order to solve the above problems, the author learned from Anglo-American law system and combined with some practical cases and put forward seven suggestions to perfect our investigators to testify in court system: 1, Establish the witness identity of the investigators; 2, Restrict the use of written “statement"; 3, Improve the scope and starting mode for investigators to testify in court; 4, Improve the compulsory measures for investigators to testify in court; 5, Guarantee the right of cross examination; 6, center on “Trial” and improve the mode of court hearing; 7, perfect the guarantee mechanism of investigators to testify in court.