Research On Reasonable Explanation Of Defective Evidence

“Two Evidence Provisions” introduced in 2010 clears the defective situations of evidence. It affirms the existence of defective evidence first time in legal document. Since then, the evidence is no longer simply divided into illegal evidence and legal evidence. At the same time, “Two Evidence Provisions” formulates the remedial measures of defective evidence which are correction and reasonable explanation. The criminal procedure law revised in 2012 made that regulation which is suitable for the death penalty cases mainly transformed into applicable to all criminal cases. To make clear the regulation of defective evidence and its remedial measure is worth approving, because it is necessary to advocate and protect human rights, to achieve entity justice and procedure justice. However, there are still a lot of problems needed to be solved on the question of remedial measure of defective evidence in judicial practice. This article on the basis of clarifying the relationship between correction and reasonable explanation, specially discusses the corresponding issues of defective evidence for reasonable explanation.This article is divided into four parts:The first part elaborates the relevant theories of defective evidence and reasonable explanation, which is the basis of the article. The part makes a distinction between defective evidence and illegal evidence, summarizes the defective situation of defective evidence, states the basic connotation of reasonable explanation and the relationship between correction and reasonable explanation, and analyses the feasibility and necessity of reasonable explanation.The second part is an analysis for current situation of reasonable explanation, to provide practical support for the following parts. In judicial practice, the present situation of the defective evidence for reasonable explanation has a high applicable rate and it always appears in the form of "presentation of condition". After that, the evidence is adopted in high proportion. But reasonable explanation system has also had trouble in the applicable process.It is difficult to distinguish from defective evidence and illegal evidence. There are no clear provisions about the defective situations. The application of reasonable explanation was not clear and someone always be confused of reasonable explanation and correction.The third part summarizes the reasons that cause difficulties in reasonable explanation,and provides theoretical support later. There are three reasons. The first one is the value level.The value orientation of "heavily fighting crime, lightly protecting human rights" existed inthe judicial practice. The second reason is the cause of the system level. Mainly expresses the lack of law and judicial interpretation. The third reason is the practice. Main representation is in practical work some investigators do not possess matchable professional quality.The fourth part puts forward ideas for improving the system of reasonable explanation,which is the most important part in the paper. To make the explanation system better applied in judicial practice, firstly, we should clear the value concept that to combine punishing crime and protecting human rights, to balance entity justice and procedure justice. Secondly, we should list all situations applying to reasonable explanation system. Finally, we should build perfect procedure of starting, reviewing and certification for reasonable explanation. If defendant, defender, public prosecutor or judge find defective situation, he can ask investigators to provide reasonable explanation of defective evidence since the procuratorate's review until the end of the court debate. Public prosecutors as well as judges have the review right of reasonable explanation. The former mainly review in writing, and the latter primarily review by asking oral argument. The burden of proof is divided into behavioral aspects and the results. The testified responsibility of behavioral aspects shall be borne by investigators.The testified responsibility of results undertaken by investigation organ and procuratorial organs according to the different reviewers. Proof standard mainly embodies as "reasonable" standard, including true explanation, confirming with other evidence and making the reviewer form the inner conviction.