Research On The Criminal Defendant's Right To Consult Case Materials

After the revision of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2012,the provisions of the defense lawyer to verify the evidence to the defendant were added,which led to the debate over whether the defendant should have the right to read.Based on the different interpretations of the term “verification of evidence”,some people think that China has established the defendant's right to read the right,while some people think that the provision is still a lawyer's right to defend.On the other hand,in other countries,the defendant's right to read the right is clearly stipulated in the law,and there are still many concerns in China's establishment of this right.From the perspective of procedural law,this paper analyzes and interprets the theoretical basis of the criminal defendant's right to read the paper,the legislative evaluation,and the dilemma of the system setting,in order to find out the problems existing in the current construction of the reading right system in China.Based on the analysis of research results and on the basis of both theory and practice,some constructive institutional construction schemes are proposed.In addition to the introduction and conclusion,the article has five chapters.The first chapter is an overview of the criminal defendant's right to read the paper.This chapter elaborates on the theoretical basis and the important value of the defendant's right to read the paper.The defendant's system of reading rights is not only related to the defendant's interest.It is a product of the balance of multiple interests.With the core concept of confrontational trial gradually infiltrating into the criminal procedure law of various countries,the prosecution and the defense have equal confrontation,and the defendant's subjective status has increasingly become the focus of attention of all countries,thus laying a theoretical foundation for the defendant's right to read the paper.Basis,because the information obtained by the defendant's scoring is an important weapon for the confrontation between the prosecution and the defense,and also a symbol of the defendant's status as a subject.In addition,giving the defendant the right to read the paper will bring a variety of values.The discovery of the facts of the case,the effective exercise of the right to defense and the change of the status of the defendant's litigant have a great impetus.The second chapter is about the investigation and evaluation of the right of criminal defendants in extraterritorial criminals.In contrast,the criminal procedure law of other countries has many places to learn from the defendant's voting rights system.The US evidence discovery system,the German defendant's voting rights system,and the European Court of Human Rights' provisions on the defendant's scrutiny provide good examples.Some of these countries have a relatively conservative attitude towards the defendant's voting rights system,such as Germany;others are more open,such as the United States.In the analysis of the theoretical basis on which the national rights system is based,the specific institutional design—including the subject,fit,time of exercise,and specific method of exercise—is found to be compatible with China's institutional construction.part.The third chapter analyzes the status quo of the defendant's voting rights system in China.This chapter is divided into two parts: The first part mainly elaborates on related issues from the legal provisions.At present,there is no clear relevant provision for the defendant to read the papers.The only related to it is Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Law: defense lawyers can verify relevant evidence like criminal suspects and defendants.Whether this article can be considered as giving the defendant the right to read the paper has become a major controversy.Some think that the article is still the inherent right of the defense lawyer.Some people think that the article indirectly gives the defendant the right to read the paper.The second part is mainly the analysis from the practical level.In our country's practice,we have begun to form the soil for constructing the defendant's papers.In fact,the adversary mode of trial has been formed.This mode of trial naturally calls for the defendant to read the right.The substantive reform of the trial has increasingly emphasized the offensive and defensive confrontation in the trial.In practice,lawyers can also let the accused know the contents of the file through various channels.The fourth chapter is to construct the predicament of the accused's system of reading rights.Although the defendant's voting rights system has very important value,there is still a long way to go before China can implement this right.China prefers the role of the defendant as the source of evidence and ignores the status of the subject of litigation;whether the right to read is the inherent right of the defense lawyer or the rights of the defendant still has many disputes,the definition of the rights and obligations of the principal-agent relationship in criminal proceedings It is still a difficult problem;the fundamental principle of human rights protection-the presumption of innocence,can not be forced to conviction-the soil that has not existed in China since ancient times.In addition,the legal risks that may be brought about by the right to read the defendant are not negligible factors,the discovery of the facts of the case,the retaliation of witnesses,and the increase in the professional risk of lawyers.These are also important factors that make the defendant's marking system in our country unwilling to let go.The fifth chapter is about the system construction of the criminal defendant's right to read the paper in China.Based on the specific analysis of the conditions and risks mentioned above,as well as relevant foreign legislation and specific practice research in China,some specific measures for constructing the system of reading rights are proposed.First of all,because this system involves multiple stakeholders,an important principle that must be adhered to in the balance of interests should be considered in the interests of the nature of the case,the stage of development of the case,and the type of evidence in the case.In fact,because the number of defendants without defenders is large,the quality of self-defense is not high,and should be the focus of attention in the process of institutional setting.Finally,a detailed analysis is carried out at the specific operational level.The scope of the scoring should be different according to different types of evidence.The stability of the substantive evidence determines that it can be fully reviewed by the accused,but the verbal evidence does not.Stable and devastating should be more restrictive when it comes to inspection.In addition,in the choice of scoring method,the defendant can apply for the scoring by himself,the judicial organ provides the case file,and the lawyer can also refer the case materials obtained by the lawyer to the accused.Relief measures for violation of rights should also be considered more.