Research On The Use Of Supervisory Evidence In Criminal Procedure

The use of supervisory evidence in criminal proceedings is the core of the connection of "supervision-judiciary" procedures.Article 33 of the supervision law is the basic provision for the entry of supervisory evidence into criminal proceedings.However,as an organizational law the interpretation of the supervision law on the connection and use of evidence,the norms of supervisory evidence collection,the standard of evidence and the specific application of the exclusion rule of illegal evidence in supervisory cases are general and vague,which can not provide clear path instructions for the practical application of supervisory evidence in criminal procedure.This paper starts with the current situation of supervision legislation,discusses the difficulties faced by the supervision evidence entering the criminal procedure in the actual operation process,and provides a specific and feasible implementation path for the supervision evidence entering the criminal procedure.The first part is the definition of the scope of supervisory evidence that can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings.Firstly,it interprets the specific connotation of "can be used as evidence",and clarifies that paragraph 1 of Article 33 of the supervision law only affirms the qualification of supervisory evidence to enter the criminal procedure.After that,it still needs to be examined and determined by the procuratorial organ and the judicial organ with the flow of the procedure,so that it can be finally used as the basis for conviction and sentencing.Secondly,affirm the qualification of evidence of the "statement,confession and apology of the respondents",and affirm that it is another expression of "confession and defense of the suspects" in the investigation procedure,and does not violate the principle of evidence in criminal proceedings.Then it discusses the evidence qualification of verbal evidence collected in the preliminary verification stage.In view of the special political attribute of job-related crime cases,the preliminary verification stage actually undertakes some supervision and investigation functions.Therefore,the evidence collected in the preliminary verification stage should be allowed to enter the criminal procedure.However,considering the strong subjectivity and instability of verbal evidence,the supervision organ should take a cautious attitude towards it.Finally,it affirms the qualification of oral evidence to directly enter the criminal procedure,but the oral evidence should be subject to strict substantive examination.The second part is the discussion of the evidence collection norms and evidence standards of the supervision organs.Firstly,it is discussed that there is a certain risk of alienation when using the same evidence standard in cases of job-related violations and job-related crimes.Therefore,the evidence standard of "double track system" should be adopted for two cases of different nature.Secondly,it clarifies the inconsistency between the norms of supervision and evidence collection and the norms of criminal evidence collection,and makes it clear that the supervision organ should first follow the norms of supervision and evidence collection when conducting investigation and evidence collection.For the cases where there are no provisions or the degree of norms is weaker than the norms of criminal evidence collection,it should refer to the relevant norms of criminal procedure evidence collection.The third part discusses the application of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in supervision cases.Firstly,it explains the different program design objectives of job-related illegal and criminal cases and the pressure caused by the application of the same illegal evidence exclusion rule in the process of practical application,and comes to the conclusion that the illegal evidence exclusion rule should be established at different levels for job-related illegal and job-related criminal cases.The evidence exclusion standard of job-related illegal cases should be weaker than that of job-related criminal cases.Secondly,in view of the lack of motivation for the supervision organ to start the exclusion of illegal evidence according to its authority,we should strengthen the right of the respondents to obtain the help of a lawyer and strengthen the implementation of starting the exclusion of illegal evidence according to the right of action.In addition,in view of the weakness of the internal supervision mechanism for the exclusion of illegal evidence by the supervisory organ,we should strengthen the construction of external supervision mechanism,strengthen the examination and determination of the evidence transferred by the judicial organ,improve the rules for witnesses,experts and respondents to testify in court,and promote the substantive process of court trial.Finally,the determination of the scope of illegal evidence in supervision cases should be based on the exclusion rules of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings.In view of the frequent occurrence of "inducement and deception" in the process of supervision,investigation and evidence collection,it should be strictly applied as the exclusion rules of illegal evidence.