Research On The Connection Between Supervision Evidence And Criminal Procedure Evidence

Evidence,as an important basis for determining the facts of a case,is undoubtedly the key to ensuring judicial justice.After the promulgation and implementation of the Supervision Law,the investigation authority of public officials’ violation of discipline,law and crime in China is unified to the supervision Committee,while the criminal proceedings of public officials due to violation of criminal law are still promoted through the mode of prosecution by procuratorial organs.China’s "Criminal Procedure Law" clarifies in the legal system that the public security organs and procuratorial organs are the subjects of case investigation,and the evidence collected in the investigation activities is of course used as evidence in criminal proceedings.However,how to use the evidence materials collected by the supervisory organ as a new subject in the process of case investigation is still in a vague area.Article 33 of "Supervision Law" stipulates the standard-setting method of supervision evidence in criminal proceedings,which actively responds to the litigation reform in China’s trial center,and this clause is similar to the bottom-up clause,which aligns the collection,use and exclusion of supervision evidence with the criminal procedure law.However,as two laws with the same rank,the simple alignment regulation does not solve the problems of the connection between the two departments’ evidence in the litigation process in terms of jurisprudence and concrete operation.In this paper,the meaning and characteristics of criminal litigation evidence and supervision evidence are analyzed in terms of research ideas,the basis of the connection between the two kinds of evidence is explained,the principles and rules that should be followed in the connection between the two kinds of evidence are pointed out,the problems existing in the connection between supervision evidence and criminal litigation evidence are revealed and discussed,and the corresponding solutions are put forward.In terms of research content,this paper focuses on the problems existing in the connection between the two kinds of evidence,such as the general provisions on the types of supervision evidence in legislation,the vague application of evidence obtained before the case is filed,the evidence review problem caused by the different procedures of obtaining evidence in the two methods,the transformation of supervision evidence,and the lack of systematic provisions on the exclusion system of illegal evidence.In order to solve the above problems,this paper puts forward the following countermeasures: Clarify the evidence qualification of the respondent’s statement and conversation transcript;Clarify the nature of the evidence obtained in the preliminary verification stage and put forward measures to ensure the effectiveness of such evidence;Standardize the requirements of supervision and evidence collection with trial as the center;Clarify the problems related to the transformation of supervision evidence;The typological design and phased application of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence supervision.