Problems And Improvement Of Evidence Discovery Before Plead Guilty And Punished

In confession and punishment cases,the procuratorial agency often leads the process of confessing guilt and confessing punishment before litigation,negotiating sentencing with the prosecuted party,and issuing sentencing recommendations based on the prosecuted party's confession of guilt and confession,and trial by the court through precise and quantified sentencing methods For reference,this process of forming sentencing recommendations should be regulated in the form of pre-trial evidence discovery.However,the overview of the system of lenient confession and punishment is standardized.The Criminal Procedure Law and the “Guiding Opinions on the Application of the Leniency System for Pleasure and Punishment”(hereinafter referred to as the “Guiding Opinions”)do not contain relevant provisions on the disclosure of evidence before pleading guilty and punishing cases.The “Guiding Opinions” only pointed out that “the People's Procuratorate can explore the evidence discovery system based on the specific circumstances of the case to protect the prosecutor's right to know and the authenticity and voluntariness of confession and punishment.” Based on this,how to deal with the process of confession and punishment,Subject,rights and obligations,etc.will be the focus of this article.This article will try to learn from the participants of the pre-litigation evidence discovery-the prosecutor's office,the party being prosecuted,and the courts that do not participate in the pre-litigation evidence discovery but have the corresponding review obligation for the confession of guilt and punishment formed by the discovery.From this point of view,discuss the basic practices,rights and obligations of the three subjects in the practice of pre-litigation evidence discovery,and the problems caused by the practice.The formation of evidence discovery before leniency has certain reference significance.The confession of guilt and punishment system in China is the development of the abandonment trial system in China.It is different from the corresponding abandonment trial system in foreign countries,and the pretrial evidence discovery system.It should be after the case is transferred for review and prosecution,the procuratorate takes the initiative or should be prosecuted,the lawyer on duty A system for applying for evidence and information discovery with the prosecutor,listening to the prosecutor's truthful confession,and providing corresponding sentencing recommendations and applicable procedures.With regard to the procuratorate,due to the lack of precise legal guidelines,the procuratorate seldom initiates the application of the pre-trial evidence discovery procedure,and the prosecuted party is often unable to know what the procuratorate holds due to the limitation of the one-way file review right.The entire content of the pre-litigation evidence discovery is not comprehensive,and some prosecutors lower the standard of proof without authorization due to the pre-litigation evidence discovery.In practice,there is also a phenomenon that pre-litigation evidence discovery is less applicable in felony cases,which will be used in criminal proceedings.The ascertainment of the facts of the Chinese case has a certain impact.Regarding the above issues,the procuratorate needs to distinguish the objects of evidence discovery during the review and prosecution process,clarify the types,scope,and discovery standards of the evidence discovery,and provide evidence to the prosecuted party by establishing a pre-trial evidence discovery form.The basis for review and supervision,and on this basis,refine the guidance on sentencing recommendations,and improve the standardization of sentencing recommendations,so that the court can review and accept the results of pre-litigation evidence discovery.In terms of courts,there are two main issues.One is the unclear attitude towards the procuratorate's sentencing recommendations,and the other is the confusion in the court's handling of the prosecuted party's appeal.The unclear attitude of the procuratorate's sentencing recommendations can be subdivided into two situations.The first,because the sentencing recommendations are too detailed,and the court trial becomes a mere formality.The second is because there are too many disputes with the sentencing recommendations and “prosecution”occurs."Law" conflicts;the court's handling of the prosecuted party's appeals has a certain degree of confusion.The specific manifestation is that the court has different opinions on the validity of the prosecutor's confession and punishing materials,such as the confirmation letter,in cases where the prosecutor pleaded guilty and punished.In practice,the courts have responded differently and are difficult to unify.In this regard,it should be clarified that the focus of the court trial is to review the confession of guilty and punishment,insist that the court conduct the trial and supervision of the pre-litigation disclosure process from the leniency of the confession and punishment,and prevent and resolve conflicts between "prosecution" and "law".At the same time,it should be noted.The sentencing recommendations of the procuratorate have a certain guiding role in court judgments.In addition,it is also necessary to distinguish between different situations in the appeal,establish a hierarchical and classified appeal-type estoppel response mechanism,and make a specific response to the appeal,instead of just the prosecutor's estoppel directly leading to the invalidation of the confession letter or other materials,To make uniform provisions on the validity of evidence in the case of estoppel.About the prosecuted party,based on the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law,the prosecuted party only enjoys the right to read the files during the pre-litigation stage of evidence discovery,which is enough in general criminal litigation cases.The right to read the files does not guarantee that the prosecuted party made a confession of guilt and punished in the pre-litigation evidence discovery based on the willingness to fully understand all the evidence.Regarding the participation of the prosecutor,the current law of our country does not clearly stipulate that the prosecutor has the right to read the files.Even if the prosecutor is in writing,the right to participate in the pre-trial evidence discovery of criminal proceedings does not exist.In addition,in reality,the prosecutor also has the risk of being induced by the procuratorial organ to prove himself guilty.We believe that it is necessary to establish a right mechanism for the prosecuted to have the right to review the files or face-to-face participation in the pre-litigation evidence discovery,clarify the face-to-face evidence discovery system,and strengthen the prosecution from the aspect of excluding illegal evidence by allowing the prosecutor to participate in the pre-litigation evidence discovery People are protected to ensure the prosecutor's right to know in the case of confession and punishment.