论文部分内容阅读
一度被誉为非法证据排除典型案例的章国锡案,宁波市鄞州人民法院经过程序与实体审查后认为,因侦查机关的前期侦查行为存在瑕疵,又因控方未按《排除非法证据规定》和《指导意见》提交全程审讯录音予以当庭质证,在被告人、辩护人多次申请侦查人员出庭接受询问后,亦不安排侦查人员出庭,据此依照《排除非法证据规定》第十一条的规定,故没有将章国锡审判前的有罪供述作为定案的根据。由于二审断然否定了一审法院的判决结果,致使非法证据排除规则在实践中“难产”。然而,2012年9月13日上午,在北京市一中法院开庭一起贩毒案,带来了非法证据排除规则的曙光,寄托了法学界人士“程序正义”的理想。
Once known as the rule of illegal evidence exclusion Zhang Guoxin case, Ningbo Yinzhou People’s Court through procedural and substantive examination concluded that because of the investigating authorities of the investigation of the existence of flaws, but also because the prosecution did not “rule out the illegal evidence” and “ Guiding Opinions ”submitted to the trial hearing the entire hearing to be testified in court, the defendant, the defender repeatedly apply for investigators to appear after the court to accept the inquiry, the investigators are not arranged to appear in court, pursuant to“ rule out the provisions of illegal evidence, ”the provisions of Article XI, Therefore, Zhang Guoxi did not pre-trial conviction as a verdict basis. As the second instance categorically denied the judgment of the court of first instance, resulting in the exclusion of illegal evidence in practice “difficult to labor ”. However, on the morning of September 13, 2012, a case of drug trafficking in a court in Beijing’s Central People’s Court brought the dawning of the rule of exclusionary illegality and placed the ideal of legal personage “procedural justice ”.