| The substance of criminal trial is an important part of the reform of criminal procedure system.In practice,we have made unremitting efforts to explore the substance of criminal trial.However,so far,the practice has not explored the path that can be promoted in the nation,the theoretical circle also has different opinions,unable to reach a consensus.It is of theoretical significance and practical value to study the realization path of substantive criminal trial.On the basis of examining the institutional path and technical path proposed by the government and the academia,this paper reflects on the predicament of the technical path of substantive reform of criminal trial in practice and puts forward some Suggestions on deepening substantive reform of criminal trial.In addition to the introduction,the text is divided into three parts,about thirty thousand words.The first part interprets two paths of the substance of criminal trial.The so-called two paths mainly refer to the technical path and institutional path proposed by the government and academia.In terms of the institutional approach,established the "trial centered lawsuit system reform",to change the status quo of "investigation center doctrine",transferring the case facts that come to trial,to ensure that the investigation,prosecution activity stand trial test,and puts forward the responsibility,to carry out the suspected crime from the judicial organ judicial organ to stick to the bottom line.The technical path mainly combines the policy requirements of "the presentation of litigation evidence in court,the investigation of case facts in court,the presentation of prosecution and defense opinions in court,and the formation of judgment results in court",and supports a series of pre-court procedures,trial procedures and the reform of judge accountability system.The reform of pretrial procedure mainly focuses on the flow of complicated and simplified cases,the arrangement of contention points,the exchange of evidence,the system of pretrial meeting and so on.The reform of trial procedure focuses on improving the cross-examination of evidence,increasing the rate of witnesses to testify in court,and enhancing the antagonism between prosecution and defense.The reform of the judge accountability system is mainly to explore ways to establish the responsibility system of the presiding judge in handling cases,to establish a mechanism to ensure the judge’s performance of his duties and to hold him accountable,and to reform the committee system in order to ensure the independence and experience of the trial.The second part discusses the dilemma of the substantive paths of criminal trial.In terms of system path,judicial reform has not been substantially touched in recent years.Substantive trial is an important part of the reform of "trial-centered".Without the institutional support of "trial center",the function of trial is still the confirmation of the periodical conclusion of investigation and prosecution.The difficulties in technical path include: first,the judge responsibility system cannot guarantee the independence and experience of the trial.In practice,the implicit administrative pressure and the dominant power of personnel assessment are in the leadership,which leads to the lack of guarantee for judges to perform their duties.The results-only accountability mechanism forced the administrative decision-making to overflow,and the judge asked the leader and reported to the superior for transferring the risk.Second,the function of entity dispute clarification before the court is limited.In order to help the judge prepare for the trial,the focus of the trial should be clarified.However,due to the practical difficulties such as the lack of use of pretrial meetings,the judge’s difficulty in finding the entity dispute points,and the irregularities in clarifying the entity dispute procedures in practice,pretrial procedures are mostly used to solve procedural disputes and eliminate illegal evidence,while the clarity of entity disputes is not sufficient and cannot play its due function.Third,there are difficulties in the reform of trial procedure.Court trials are not unique,and the practice of settling substantive disputes out of court is still common.The judicial committee,hearing,request for instructions from the superior court,and reporting system replace court trials to reach the final conclusion of a case,which still does not have the unique characteristics of open,prosecution,defense and trial involving three parties.In addition,there are also some problems in the trial itself,such as the lack of emphasis on cross-examination evidence,mechanical repetition,and incomplete system of witness testifying in court,which limit the function of finding the dispute of facts in the trial.The third part discusses the path of deepening the substantive reform of criminal trial.The substantive criminal trial should be both institutional and technical.We will deepen the reform of "trial centers," clarify the internal and external relations of the courts and ensure that trials are at the center of the three stages of investigation and prosecution.In terms of technical path,the first is to ensure the independence and experience of the trial.Abandon the results-only accountability mechanism and respect the law of trial.Clarify the causes of liability and standards of proof,clarify the subject and standards of proof of exemption,and establish a relief mechanism for the interests of judges.Second,in the pre-trial procedure,it is clear that substantive disputes should be taken seriously.Therefore,the judge should not only review the papers comprehensively and attach importance to the role of the examination papers,but also regulate the exchange and summary procedures of the opinions of the three parties to the dispute points in the pre-trial procedure and prohibit the judge from contacting the prosecution and defense in private in front of the court to clarify the substantive disputes.Third,ensure the "uniqueness" of the trial in resolving substantive disputes.Abolishing the internal case management mechanism of the court and the way in which the trial committee decides the final conclusion of a case,establishing an equal exchange mechanism of cases,helping to standardize the exercise of judicial power,and improving the ability of judges to solve difficult problems in case facts identification and law application instead of handling cases for them.At the same time,to deal with the trial program must reform itself,strengthen control,articulate,three judges professional suit,the prosecuting and defending parties in the judge guide over disputed evidence priority of cross-examination,perfect the system of witness to testify,not will enhance the prosecuting and defending confrontational,increase the rate of witness to testify in trial as trial essence of a single goal. |
