Research On The Rules Of Correction Of Defective Evidence In Crimina Procedure

Flaw evidence is a legal term unique to our country.In the "Two Evidence Regulations" jointly issued by the two high schools and three ministries,an authoritative official put forward the concept of "flaw evidence" for the first time.This is the first time that my country has admitted the existence of flawed evidence in the form of judicial interpretation.Our country pioneered the division of evidence into illegal evidence,flawed evidence and legal evidence,and stipulated corresponding exclusion rules for the first two illegal evidence.Among them,illegal evidence means evidence with major illegality,and compulsory exclusion rules should be applied;defective evidence means evidence with minor defects,and rules that can be supplemented and corrected;and legal evidence is evidence whose collection methods are all in compliance with the law,which can be directly Was adopted,therefore,the three have clear boundaries.From another perspective,illegal evidence has no evidence capacity from the beginning;while the evidence capacity of flawed evidence is in a pending state.Whether it can eliminate flaws,eliminate illegality,and obtain complete evidence ability depends on the ability of investigative agencies.Whether to make corrections and give a reasonable explanation;only legal evidence has full evidentiary capacity,and it can be directly adopted as the basis for ascertaining the facts of the case.In addition,although the first two pieces of evidence are both illegal,there are still significant differences.In terms of the severity of the illegality,the method of collecting illegal evidence has substantial illegality,and the collection process is also likely to cause citizens’ constitutionality.If the basic rights are infringed,if the evidence is adopted,it will seriously affect the judicial justice;while the blemish evidence is evidence that the act of obtaining the evidence is only slightly illegal.If the evidence is adopted,the judicial justice will generally not be seriously affected.Therefore,allowing flawed evidence to be supplemented is justified and reasonable:First,it is conducive to discovering the truth of the case.In the proceedings,if the exclusion of evidence is too arbitrary,it may cause the prosecution’s chain of evidence to be interrupted and the alleged crimes to be unfounded,which will cause criminal suspects who should be punished to escape sanctions and fail to achieve the purpose of criminal proceedings to combat crime;Second,it is helpful to supervise and urge case-handling organs to abide by the law and implement litigation.The correction of defective evidence has the nature of procedural sanctions,which can force the case-handling agency to exercise its powers in accordance with the law;third,the requirements of the economic concept of litigation.Evidence is a scarce resource,and its quantity is limited.If it is not a last resort,it should not be excluded.In order to combine theory with practice,this article also uses relevant cases in Inner Mongolia as a sample to analyze the handling of flawed evidence in current judicial practice to support the conclusions drawn in this article.In addition,the correction of defective evidence also has different treatment methods outside the territory.For example,the United States established the "good faith exception" and the "innocent error principle",Germany established the "evidence prohibition system",and France established the invalidation system of litigation.At present,there are many problems in the handling of flawed evidence in judicial practice in my country,such as the expanded application of correction procedures,confusion caused by unclear definitions of related concepts,lack of specific operating procedures in legislation,and multiple corrections made by investigative agencies.Therefore,this article believes that the boundary between illegal physical evidence and flawed evidence should be clearly demarcated,and illegal evidence should not be given the opportunity to supplement and correct.In addition,it is necessary to refine the specific operating rules of the flawed evidence supplement and correction procedure,and to clarify the proof standards for the supplement and correction of flawed evidence,etc.problem.