Study Of Cross-examination

With the advance of the reform of the trial-centered criminal procedure system,the substantive reform of the trial has entered a critical stage.As an important system to explore the truth of the case in Anglo-American legal system trial,The Cross-examination system has gradually entered the field of vision of Chinese academic circles.Cross-examination system requires witnesses to appear in court for questioning by both parties,makes witness' s every move,every word and every action under the close attention of all parties,the judge can analyze and judge the testifying power of the witness' s testimony through details such as the change of the witness' s expression and the response to questions from all parties,and then decide whether to believe the witness or not.Cross-examination is the litmus test of a witness' s testimony,it is an important guarantee for the formation of conviction and sentencing in trial,and an institutional guarantee for the realization of trial substance.However,there are many problems with the witness inquiry procedures in our country,such as the subjects of witness inquiry are diversified,the inquiries are out of order,and so on,There is no perfect system of cross-examination in our country.Judicial practice also faces the problem of low attendance rate of witnesses and lawyers,the unequal legal status of two sides of defendant,the prevai of “bibliocentrism” an so on,A judicial environment suitable for cross-examination system has not yet been formed.The first part of this article is mainly about the introduction of concepts,this part analyzes the cross-examination system of the common law system from the subjects,the order,the rules and other parties,and combined with the provisions of the court's human rights investigation and judicial practice in China's legislation,analyzes specific operational procedures and specifications of cross-examination in China's witness inquiry.At the same time,this part also introduces the examples of trials of two successful cross-examination in China.The second part mainly introduces the extraterritorial experience of cross-examination.Organizes and analyzes the main body,object,order and related rules of the Cross-examination system under the structure of the Anglo-American legal system,civil law system and mixed law litigation,In order to provide reference for the construction of China's Cross-examination system.The third part mainly analyzes the legislative and judicial aspect's problems of the witness inquiry in Chinese criminal proceedings.In the case of legislation,there are diversified witnessinquiry investigations,no cross-examination order and rules.In judicial practice.Interrogated objects are restricted,cross inquiry without a program and with authority,prosecution and defense lack confrontation,improper inquiry prevailing,and so on.The fourth part puts forward suggestions for constructing a cross-examination system from the existing problems of witness inquiry investigation,and proposes to improve the specific components of cross-examination subjects and objects,and clearly distinguish between prosecution witnesses and defense witnesses from the order of Cross-examination.To allow the use of inductive inquiry and to stipulate the prohibition situation,improve the norms and remedies for improperly questioning objections,and construct and improve the procedural norms of cross-examination.At the same time,improve the witness testimony system,improve the pretrial preparation procedures,and strengthen the defense rights.And other aspects to build a related system of cross-examination system.This paper is based on the investigation of the status quo of the investigation of the judicial appraisal in the criminal procedure judicial practice in China,and analyzes the existing problems.Combining the analysis of the cross-examination experience under the Anglo-American legal system,the civil law system and the mixed law litigation structure,this paper The system construction of cross-examination in criminal trials puts forward specific recommendations that are in line with the judicial reality of our country.