Rules Of Settling Criminal Case With Indirect Evidence And Reconstruction

The indirect evidence finalization rules refer to the conditions that need to be satisfied when using the indirect evidence to determine that the defendant is guilty in the absence of direct evidence.Article 105 of the Interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law in 2012 clarifies the content of the indirect evidence finalization rules in criminal cases from five aspects: evidence ability,evidence relationship,certification system,certification standard and certification process.Prior to this,the use of indirect evidence to finalize cases has long been known to the judiciary.With the increasing concealment of criminal behavior and the growing awareness of criminals in counter-investigation,there is less and less direct evidence available in practice,while the use of indirect evidence to identify the main facts of the case is increasing.At the same time,The gradual improvement of the indirect evidence theory,the tireless practice exploration and the rapid development of criminal investigation techniques have created more favorable conditions for the use of indirect evidence.However,the existing of indirect evidence finalization rules have not become a weapon for handling cases such as “zero confession” as expected,and they face many difficulties in judicial practice.This paper takes the indirect evidence finalization rules as the research object,and starts from the current situation of the indirect evidence finalization rules and specific case in order to find the existing problems.By comparing with the indirect evidence finalizationmechanism,it reflects on the misunderstandings in the current rules.Suggestions for perfecting the rules for determining the indirect evidence are put forward,as well as the ideas and methods for practical application.The first chapter is based on a typical case,showing the decisive influence of the understanding and application of the indirect evidence finalization rules on the outcome of the case.On the basis of combing the formation and development process of the indirect evidence finalization rules in our country,I will interpret the specific connotations of the provisions these rules: the authenticity of the indirect evidence,the relationship between the evidences,the integrity of the certification system,the only conclusion of the proof,and the rationality of the proof process.At the same time,by searching relevant legal provisions,academic achievements,judicial application,etc.,it can be found that due to the immature theory,the lack of legislation and the judicial system,the overall application of the indirect evidence finalization rules in China is not ideal.There are many problems.The second chapter interprets the mechanism of using indirect evidence to prove facts from the perspective of urgency,and clarifies the concept of circumstantial evidence.On this basis,the misunderstanding of the general theory in China will be clarified from "indirect","combination" and "the main facts of the case",and the proof path of using indirect evidence to finalize the case will be also analyzed.Different from that of direct evidence,the proof of the main facts with indirect evidence relies on inference,so the proof system based on inference is adopted.The third chapter is the main part of the article,which mainly expounds the reflection on the indirect evidence finalization rules in China.First,for the review of indirect evidence,only the comprehensive analysis of whole evidence in the case is emphasized in the examination mode,but the review of the individual indirect evidence is lacking;the authenticity of the indirect evidence is emphasized unilaterally in the content of the review,and the legality and relevance of the indirect evidence are ignored.In addition,using corroboration as the standard ofauthenticity is problematic,and rules for authenticating the evidence of physical evidence are absent.Second,the pattern of proof used is inconsistent with that of indirect evidence,and the verification of indirect evidence in the whole case is difficult to achieve.Third,according to the characteristics of indirect evidence,the inference system is formed by inferential chain instead of evidence chain when using indirect evidence.Therefore,the proof system cannot be constructed by means of verification.Fourth,there is a logical contradiction between "excluding reasonable doubt" and "the conclusion is unique",which leads to a higher standard of proof when indirect evidence is finalized and proves to be difficult to grasp.The fourth chapter is based on the comparison of the state of "ought to be" and "to be",and proposes to reconstruct the indirect evidence finalization rules from four aspects: first,a comprehensive review of the indirect evidence,including independent review of indirect evidence and comprehensive analysis of indirect evidence in the whole case,should be considered;secondly,constructing a reasonable proof model that is more in line with the characteristics of indirect evidence;thirdly,a unified proof standard ought to be adapted,which can be known well subjectively and objectively,positively and negatively;finally,only the correct use of logical reasoning and rules of thumb can reduce the probability of inference as much as possible,and improve the accuracy of using the indirect evidence to determine the main facts of the case.At the end of this paper,a case of intentional injury will be used to explain how the revised indirect evidence finalization rules applied in specific cases.