本文選題：檢察機(jī)關(guān) + 非法證據(jù)　； 參考：《吉林大學(xué)》2014年博士論文

【摘要】：非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則產(chǎn)生于1914年美國聯(lián)邦最高法院審理的威克斯訴美國一案，伴隨著兩大法系不同國家間的交流與融合，非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則已被世界上絕大多數(shù)國家的刑事立法和刑事司法所采用，我國也已將非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則正式寫入刑訴法。在我國的憲政體制下，檢察機(jī)關(guān)作為國家的法律監(jiān)督機(jī)關(guān)，不僅行使職務(wù)犯罪偵查權(quán)和公訴權(quán)，還行使著對(duì)刑事訴訟全程進(jìn)行法律監(jiān)督的職權(quán)。我國檢察機(jī)關(guān)檢察權(quán)權(quán)能的多元化特點(diǎn)和對(duì)刑事訴訟活動(dòng)全程參與的獨(dú)特屬性，決定了檢察機(jī)關(guān)在刑事訴訟中排除非法證據(jù)的重要性、復(fù)雜性和特殊性。本文以檢察機(jī)關(guān)為視角，采用比較分析法、價(jià)值分析法及思辨與實(shí)證相結(jié)合的方法，對(duì)檢察機(jī)關(guān)在刑事訴訟中排除非法證據(jù)的相關(guān)內(nèi)容予以系統(tǒng)梳理和詳細(xì)闡釋。 全文主要內(nèi)容除導(dǎo)論外，共分六章。 在第一章中，筆者論述了檢察機(jī)關(guān)在刑事訴訟中排除非法證據(jù)的重要作用、理論基礎(chǔ)和價(jià)值取向。證據(jù)裁判原則是現(xiàn)代法治國家證據(jù)制度的基石，，也被稱作證據(jù)裁判主義。證據(jù)的合法性是證據(jù)裁判原則的重要內(nèi)涵之一，不具備合法性特質(zhì)的證據(jù)往往缺乏真實(shí)性，證據(jù)必須經(jīng)過示證、質(zhì)證并被有效證明后，方能作為定案根據(jù)；程序性制裁理論在西方法學(xué)界受到了較早的重視，程序性制裁針對(duì)的是程序性違法行為，程序性違法行為可能存在于刑事訴訟的任何階段，非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則是程序性制裁的重要手段之一；根據(jù)我國憲法、刑訴法的規(guī)定，人民檢察院在刑事訴訟過程中享有廣泛職權(quán)，全程參與刑事訴訟，而根據(jù)我國刑訴法的規(guī)定，非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則也是貫穿刑事訴訟活動(dòng)始終的，這決定了檢察機(jī)關(guān)在刑事訴訟排除非法證據(jù)方面能夠發(fā)揮重要的作用，但是也面臨著諸多挑戰(zhàn)和沖突，包括非法證據(jù)的審查和被審查角色的沖突，證據(jù)排除與公訴權(quán)實(shí)現(xiàn)的沖突及排除非法證據(jù)的法律監(jiān)督與被監(jiān)督的角色沖突；檢察機(jī)關(guān)排除非法證據(jù)的理論基礎(chǔ)應(yīng)包括三項(xiàng)內(nèi)容，即程序正義理論、客觀公正義務(wù)理論和法律監(jiān)督理論；檢察機(jī)關(guān)在刑事訴訟中排除非法證據(jù)不僅體現(xiàn)了人權(quán)保障與限制公權(quán)力的價(jià)值，更是維護(hù)司法尊嚴(yán)和司法公信力的客觀需要。 在第二章中，筆者對(duì)英美法系和大陸法系主要國家的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則進(jìn)行了考察，并論述了各國檢察官在排除非法證據(jù)過程中的作用。就刑事訴訟中的非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則而言，英美法系的排除規(guī)則比大陸法系的排除規(guī)則更具有豐富內(nèi)容，尤其是美國，其非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則最為發(fā)達(dá)。對(duì)于非法言辭證據(jù)，由于其對(duì)公民憲法權(quán)利的嚴(yán)重危害性，無論是英美法系還是大陸法系，各國一般都規(guī)定了強(qiáng)制排除；對(duì)于非法實(shí)物證據(jù)，美國要求原則排除，而英國、德國和日本則將非法實(shí)物證據(jù)的排除委諸于法官自由裁量。美國要求排除非法證據(jù)衍生出的“毒樹之果”，而英國、德國和日本一般不予排除。各國對(duì)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則具體范圍的設(shè)定，反映了懲罰犯罪與保護(hù)人權(quán)之間天然的緊張關(guān)系。就檢察官在排除非法證據(jù)中的作用而言，英國和美國的檢察部門與警察部門相對(duì)獨(dú)立，互不隸屬，檢察官僅享有十分有限的偵查引導(dǎo)權(quán)，基本不會(huì)在刑事案件偵查階段涉足非法證據(jù)的排除。而德國和日本的檢察部門對(duì)警察部門的偵查活動(dòng)享有領(lǐng)導(dǎo)權(quán)和指揮權(quán)，更能有效地阻止警察的非法偵查行為，防止非法取證行為的作用也更為突出。在刑事案件審查起訴階段，各國檢察官一般都會(huì)對(duì)證據(jù)合法性進(jìn)行審查判斷，以防止控方證據(jù)被排除的不利后果。在對(duì)控方證據(jù)的合法性證明方面，雖然這一證明活動(dòng)在刑事訴訟的具體發(fā)生階段有所差異，但各國檢察官均擔(dān)負(fù)著對(duì)控方提出證據(jù)的合法性的證明責(zé)任。 在第三章中，論述了檢察機(jī)關(guān)在自偵案件中如何實(shí)現(xiàn)對(duì)非法證據(jù)的防控和在審查逮捕、審查起訴環(huán)節(jié)對(duì)非法證據(jù)排除。在對(duì)非法證據(jù)范圍的認(rèn)識(shí)方面，除了要全面認(rèn)識(shí)非法證據(jù)的宏觀構(gòu)成要素外，檢察機(jī)關(guān)還應(yīng)注意區(qū)分非法證據(jù)與瑕疵證據(jù)的界限、非法證據(jù)與訊問策略的界限。明確非法言辭證據(jù)中何謂“刑訊逼供等”非法方法，何謂非法實(shí)物證據(jù)中的“嚴(yán)重影響司法公正”等問題。在非法證據(jù)的排除方式方面，我國刑訴法和相關(guān)規(guī)定設(shè)立了絕對(duì)排除、裁量排除和無法補(bǔ)正排除三種排除方式；檢察機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)根據(jù)非法證據(jù)的不同形式對(duì)三種排除方式區(qū)別適用，并應(yīng)注意對(duì)于重復(fù)自白、共犯非法證據(jù)及不同的“毒樹之果”選用不同的排除方式加以排除。在程序性內(nèi)容方面，檢察機(jī)關(guān)在審前階段排除非法證據(jù)時(shí)應(yīng)履行權(quán)利告知義務(wù)，審前非法證據(jù)排除程序的啟動(dòng)可分為依職權(quán)啟動(dòng)和依申請(qǐng)啟動(dòng)兩種方式，偵查機(jī)關(guān)或偵查部門負(fù)有對(duì)證據(jù)合法性的證明責(zé)任，證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)應(yīng)與庭審階段檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)證據(jù)合法性的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)一致。 第四章內(nèi)容，以審判階段檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)證據(jù)合法性的證明為重點(diǎn)并適當(dāng)論及審判階段排除非法證據(jù)的程序性內(nèi)容。審判階段排除非法證據(jù)的程序啟動(dòng)依然包括職權(quán)啟動(dòng)和申請(qǐng)啟動(dòng)兩種，只是此時(shí)可依職權(quán)啟動(dòng)非法證據(jù)調(diào)查程序的主體是法官而非檢察官。排除非法證據(jù)的動(dòng)議應(yīng)盡量在庭前會(huì)議中提出，但并不排斥審判階段提出排除非法證據(jù)的動(dòng)議。證據(jù)合法性的證明責(zé)任原則上由檢察機(jī)關(guān)承擔(dān)，但針對(duì)不同的非法證據(jù)形式證明責(zé)任的承擔(dān)也會(huì)有所不同。檢察機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)選擇合適的證明方式對(duì)證據(jù)合法性進(jìn)行證明，并且證明活動(dòng)必須達(dá)到適當(dāng)?shù)淖C明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)才能完成。筆者認(rèn)為，對(duì)于絕對(duì)排除的非法言詞證據(jù)應(yīng)采用“排除合理懷疑”的證明標(biāo)準(zhǔn)，對(duì)于裁量排除的非法實(shí)物證據(jù)可采用“優(yōu)勢(shì)證明”的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。 在第五章中，筆者主要論述了檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)刑事訴訟過程中排除非法證據(jù)進(jìn)行法律監(jiān)督的內(nèi)容。雖然新刑訴法并未對(duì)此作出專門規(guī)定，但檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)刑事訴訟中排除非法證據(jù)進(jìn)行法律監(jiān)督應(yīng)是對(duì)非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的一種應(yīng)然理解，也是排除非法證據(jù)的最后一道屏障。檢察機(jī)關(guān)對(duì)刑事訴訟中排除非法證據(jù)的法律監(jiān)督包括對(duì)公訴案件的監(jiān)督和對(duì)自訴案件的監(jiān)督。對(duì)公訴案件的法律監(jiān)督，又分為對(duì)偵查活動(dòng)中非法取證行為的監(jiān)督和對(duì)審前階段排除非法證據(jù)的監(jiān)督，對(duì)審判階段的法律監(jiān)督主要是對(duì)人民法院是否嚴(yán)格依法適用非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則、保障被告人權(quán)利的監(jiān)督。筆者認(rèn)為，就刑事訴訟過程中排除非法證據(jù)而言，檢察機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)以刑事公訴案件的法律監(jiān)督為主并加強(qiáng)和完善對(duì)刑事自訴案件的法律監(jiān)督。 在第六章中，筆者主要論述了以下內(nèi)容：非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的復(fù)雜性和我國檢察權(quán)權(quán)能的多元化特點(diǎn)，決定了檢察機(jī)關(guān)在排除非法證據(jù)過程中面臨著多種沖突境地，包括排除非法證據(jù)的審查與被審查角色的沖突、證據(jù)排除與公訴權(quán)實(shí)現(xiàn)的沖突以及排除非法證據(jù)的法律監(jiān)督與被監(jiān)督的角色沖突。對(duì)于上述沖突需要沿多種進(jìn)路進(jìn)行化解，包括密切檢警關(guān)系、加強(qiáng)律師作用、合理處理檢察機(jī)關(guān)內(nèi)部分工及對(duì)檢察權(quán)進(jìn)行合理制約等方面。
[Abstract]:The rule of exclusionary rule of illegal evidence came into being in the case of Weekes v. America, which was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1914. With the exchange and integration of the different countries of the two legal systems, the rule of exclusionary rule of illegal evidence has been adopted by the criminal legislation and criminal justice of the vast majority of the world. The rule of exclusionary rule of illegal evidence has been formally written in China. Under the constitutional system of our country, the procuratorial organ, as the legal supervision organ of the state, not only exercises the power of investigation and public prosecution, but also exercises the authority to supervise the whole course of criminal proceedings. The characteristics of the pluralistic characteristics of the power of procuratorial power of the procuratorial organs of our country and the unique attribute of participating in the whole process of criminal proceedings. The importance, complexity and particularity of the procuratorial organs in criminal proceedings are determined. This paper, taking the procuratorial organs as the angle of view, adopts the method of comparative analysis, value analysis and speculative and empirical methods, to systematically comb and elaborate the relevant contents of the procuratorial organs in the criminal proceedings to exclude the illegal evidence.
In addition to introduction, the main content of the full text is divided into six chapters.
In the first chapter, the author expounds the important role, the theoretical basis and the value orientation of the procuratorial organs in the criminal proceedings. The principle of evidence judgment is the cornerstone of the evidence system of the modern rule of law and is also called the adjudicative doctrine. The legitimacy of the evidence is one of the important connotations of the principle of evidence refereeing. The evidence of quality is often lack of authenticity. The evidence must be demonstrated, the evidence is proved and proved effectively. The procedural sanction theory has been given early attention in the western jurisprudence, procedural sanction is aimed at procedural illegality, procedural illegality may exist at any stage of criminal proceedings, and it is illegal. The rule of exclusionary rule is one of the important means of procedural sanction. According to the constitution of our country, the people's Procuratorate enjoys extensive power and full participation in criminal proceedings in the process of criminal proceedings. According to the provisions of the criminal procedure law of China, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is always throughout the criminal proceedings, which determines the prosecution. The organ can play an important role in the exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings, but it also faces many challenges and conflicts, including the examination of illegal evidence and the conflict of the examined role, the conflict of the elimination of evidence and the realization of the right of public prosecution and the conflict between the legal supervision and the supervised role of the exclusion of illegal evidence; the procuratorial organ excludes the illicit The theoretical basis of evidence should include three contents, namely, the theory of procedural justice, the theory of objective justice and the theory of legal supervision, and the exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings by procuratorial organs not only embodies the value of human rights protection and restriction of public power, but also the objective needs of judicial dignity and judicial credibility.
In the second chapter, the author examines the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in common law and civil law countries, and discusses the role of the prosecutors in the process of eliminating illegal evidence. In terms of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings, the exclusionary rules of the Anglo American legal system are more abundant than the exclusionary rules of the continental law system. In the United States, especially in the United States, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is the most developed. For illicit verbal evidence, because of its serious harm to citizens' constitutional rights, whether it is in the Anglo American legal system or the continental law system, countries generally stipulate compulsory exclusion; for illegal physical evidence, the United States requires the rule of law to be ruled out, while Britain, Germany and Japan will The exclusions of illegal physical evidence are made by the judges. The United States requires the exclusion of the "fruit of poison trees" derived from illegal evidence, while Britain, Germany and Japan generally do not exclude. The specific scope of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence reflects the natural tension between the punishment and the protection of the rights of the protector. In terms of the role of illegal evidence, the procuratorial and police departments of the United Kingdom and the United States are relatively independent and not subordinate to each other. The prosecutor only enjoys a very limited power of investigation and guidance. It will not be involved in the exclusion of illegal evidence at the stage of criminal investigation. And the inspection department in Germany and Japan enjoys leadership in the investigation activities of the police department. And the right of command can effectively prevent the illegal investigation of the police and prevent the illegal evidence taking. In the stage of the examination and prosecution of the criminal cases, the prosecutors of all countries will generally examine and judge the legitimacy of the evidence so as to prevent the negative consequences of the exclusion of the prosecution evidence. Although this demonstration activity varies in the specific stage of the criminal proceedings, the prosecutors in all countries bear the burden of proof of the legitimacy of the evidence proposed by the prosecution.
In the third chapter, the paper discusses how the procuratorial organs realize the prevention and control of illegal evidence in the self investigation cases, the examination and arrest and the elimination of illegal evidence in the examination and prosecution links. In addition to the understanding of the scope of the illegal evidence, the procuratorial organs should also pay attention to the distinction between illegal evidence and defects. The boundary of the evidence, the boundary of the illegal evidence and the interrogation strategy. What is the unlawful method of "extorting the confession by torture" in the illegal verbal evidence, what is the "serious influence on judicial justice" in the illegal physical evidence. In the way of the exclusionary method of illegal evidence, the criminal procedure law and the relevant provisions of our country have set up absolute exclusion, discretion and absence. The three exclusionary methods are excluded by the law, and the procuratorial organs should distinguish the three ways of exclusion according to the different forms of illegal evidence, and should pay attention to the exclusion of the repeated confession, the accomplice of the illegal evidence and the different "fruit of the poison tree" by different methods of exclusion. In the case of legal evidence, the obligation to inform the rights should be fulfilled. The initiation of the pretrial illegal evidence exclusion procedure can be divided into two ways: starting with power and applying for the application. The investigative organ or the investigative department bears the burden of proof of the legitimacy of the evidence. The standard of proof should be consistent with the standard of proof of the validity of the testimony in the trial stage of the trial.
In the fourth chapter, we focus on the proof of the legitimacy of the evidence in the trial stage and appropriately discuss the procedural content of eliminating illegal evidence at the trial stage. The initiation of the procedure for eliminating illegal evidence in the trial stage still includes the starting of the power and the application for the start of two kinds, but it is only at this time that the main body of the illegal evidence investigation procedure can be started in accordance with the authority. It is a judge rather than a prosecutor. The motion to exclude illegal evidence should be put forward in a pre court meeting, but it does not exclude the motion to exclude illegal evidence at the trial stage. The burden of proof of the legitimacy of the evidence is undertaken by the procuratorial organ in principle, but the burden of proof for different forms of illegal evidence will be different. The procuratorial organ should To prove the validity of evidence, and to prove that the activity must reach the appropriate standard of proof, the author believes that the standard of "exclude reasonable doubt" should be adopted for the absolutely excluded illegal evidence, and the standard of "proof of superiority" can be adopted for the discretionary unlawful physical evidence.
In the fifth chapter, the author mainly discusses the contents of the legal supervision of the procuratorial organs for the exclusion of illegal evidence in the process of criminal proceedings. Although the new criminal procedure law does not make special provisions on this, the legal supervision of the procuratorial organs for the exclusion of illegal evidence in criminal proceedings should be a clear understanding of the exclusionary rule of the non legal evidence. The last barrier to exclude illegal evidence. The legal supervision of the procuratorial organs to exclude illegal evidence in criminal proceedings includes supervision of public prosecution cases and supervision of cases of private prosecution. The legal supervision of public prosecution cases is divided into the supervision of illegal evidence taking in investigation activities and supervision of the exclusion of illegal evidence in the pre trial stage. The legal supervision of the judgment stage is mainly about the strict application of the illegal evidence exclusionary rule to the people's court and the supervision of the rights of the accused. In the author's opinion, the procuratorial organ should focus on the legal supervision of the criminal prosecution case and strengthen and improve the legal supervision of the criminal prosecution cases. Governor.
In the sixth chapter, the author mainly discusses the following contents: the complexity of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence and the pluralistic characteristics of the power of procuratorial power in our country, which determines that the procuratorial organs are confronted with various conflicts in the process of eliminating illegal evidence, including the conflict between the censorship of illegal evidence and the role of the censorship, the exclusion of evidence and the right of public prosecution. The conflict and the conflict of the legal supervision and the supervised role of the exclusion of illegal evidence need to be resolved along various routes, including close inspection and police relations, the strengthening of the role of lawyers, reasonable handling of the internal division of labor in the procuratorial organs and the rational restriction of procuratorial power.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2;D926.3

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 王圣揚(yáng);王金華;;刑事審判中檢察機(jī)關(guān)的角色定位研究——以控辯平衡原理為視角[J];安徽大學(xué)法律評(píng)論;2008年01期

2 楊宇冠;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則及其在中國確立問題研究[J];比較法研究;2010年03期

3 肖川;;人文-社會(huì)學(xué)術(shù)研究中的感悟、思辨與實(shí)證[J];北京師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年01期

4 謝佑平;吳羽;;程序法的價(jià)值分析——從憲政、法制品質(zhì)與司法正義三重意義上[J];東北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2011年06期

5 瑪格麗特·K·路易斯;林喜芬;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則在中國:通過“控制濫權(quán)”實(shí)現(xiàn)“權(quán)力正當(dāng)”(上)[J];東方法學(xué);2011年06期

6 瑪格麗特·K·路易斯;林喜芬;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則在中國:通過“控制濫權(quán)”實(shí)現(xiàn)“權(quán)力正當(dāng)”(下)[J];東方法學(xué);2012年01期

7 李倩;;關(guān)于中國借鑒德國非法證據(jù)排除理論的思考[J];東南大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年S2期

8 龔佳禾;;檢察官客觀義務(wù)研究[J];湖南社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年05期

9 陳瑞華;;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則的理論反思[J];法律適用;2006年06期

10 田口守一;張凌;;日本裁判員制度的創(chuàng)設(shè)與證據(jù)法的變動(dòng)[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2008年05期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 謝佳宏;非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則比較研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

2 杜學(xué)毅;中國非法證據(jù)排除規(guī)則構(gòu)建研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2013年

本文編號(hào)：1928564