论文部分内容阅读
我国侦查机关向第三方调查取证面对很多的困境,其不仅仅是表现在法律方面的依据少、难操作、难施行,更多是侦查机关向第三方调查取证的程序性问题而导致的第三方的各类“软性”抵制。从目前的国内来看,我国缺乏关于侦查机关向第三方调查取证的法律细则规定,而侦查机关向第三方调查取证的困境确实是我国实现以审判为中心的诉讼制度改革的“绊脚石”。为了能更好保证侦查工作的有序进行,切实推进我国司法制度改革和以审判为中心的诉讼制度的建立,故对美国的部分相关内容加以探究。虽然美国属于英美法系以判例法为主,我国属于中国特色社会主义法律体系,但其部分先进性的经验对我国侦查机关向第三方调查取证有一定的启示作用。
Investigation agencies in our country to face a lot of investigation and evidence collection difficulties, which is not only reflected in the legal basis of the less difficult to operate, difficult to implement, more is the investigation of the investigation of evidence to a third party procedural issues caused by the first All three types of “soft” boycott. From the current domestic point of view, there is a lack of legal rules in our country to investigate and collect evidence from third parties. However, the predicament of investigating and prosecuting agencies to investigate and obtain evidence from third parties is indeed a “stumbling block” for the reform of the litigation system centered on trial in our country. . In order to better ensure the orderly conduct of the investigation and effectively push forward the reform of our judicial system and the establishment of a litigation system centered on trial, part of the relevant content in the United States is explored. Although the United States belongs to the Anglo-American legal system with case law as its mainstay, our country belongs to the socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics. However, some of its advanced experiences provide some enlightenment to our third-party investigation and evidence collection.