2. The Supreme Court of the United States passed the judgment of Max Planck's case, and finally imposed the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence on the states. ?
In principle, Wilkes rule only applies to the judgment that the federal police take illegal search to obtain evidence, and the state courts can still apply it selectively. The U.S. Supreme Court formally gave state courts the power to refuse to apply the Wilkes rule through the Wolf case. Later, considering the influence of Wilkes case on the states and the attitude of state courts to the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence after Wolff case, the Supreme Court of the United States finally imposed the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence on the states with the judgment of Max case. ?
3. The establishment of the exclusion rule of "the fruit of the poison tree" further makes it possible for the principle of due process to obtain relief in the field of criminal proceedings.
The "privilege against self-incrimination" based on the Fifth Amendment and the "right to get the help of lawyers" based on the Sixth Amendment are also included in the scope of application of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. The establishment of the exclusion rule of "fruit of poison tree" further makes it possible for the principle of due process to obtain relief in the field of criminal procedure. This series of applicable rules constitute the basic framework of the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in the United States. ?
4. system exceptions?
The decision of Marx case makes the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence applicable to all countries, which makes it possible for the rule to be realized in justice. However, the support of legislative norms has failed to quell the frequent objections in various judgments, that is, a considerable part of the public is addicted to crime. * * * After Nixon was elected president, people who were "more obedient to social order" were appointed as justices one after another. Under the impetus of these people, the Federal Supreme Court not only greatly restricted the scope of application of the exclusion rule, but also gave birth to a series of exceptions to the exclusion rule, such as exceptions used as impeachment evidence and bona fide exceptions, in order to avoid the adverse consequences of "the defendant who is actually guilty escapes sanctions". ?
The judgment of Hudson case in p>26 declared that the exception rule of "knocking on the door to testify by oneself" was accepted, that is, the execution judge failed to perform the obligation of "knocking on the door to testify by oneself" on the premise of obtaining a legal writ, which could not be used as a reason to exclude evidence against criminals.
In the field of verbal evidence, the Miranda rule is also controversial. Although the American federal court has indicated in the Dixon case in 22 that the Miranda rule is a constitutional precedent of the Supreme Court, the judge's discretion is always in a state of competition between the court and the Congress. It was not until the Supreme Court passed a judicial opinion with an overwhelming advantage of 7 to 2, reaffirming the constitutional nature of the Miranda rule established in Dickson's case, that this long-standing debate was settled. ?
second, the legislative differences between China and the United States. Summarizing the legislative approach of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in the United States, it is not difficult to see that the establishment of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in the United States follows a transformation path from constitution to criminal procedure law and from principle to rule. In the United States, the constitutional nature of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is mostly composed of precedents, and the dispute over its retention or abolition has been going on for many years. Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States used the cases that have been passed to show that the exclusion rule itself is not a constitutional requirement and can be passed by Congress. Therefore, some scholars believe that the prospect of exclusion rule is worrying in the field of illegal acquisition of physical evidence in the United States. ?
2. Different from the United States, in China, both the "two rules of evidence" and the new criminal procedure law and its judicial interpretation recognize the importance of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in safeguarding human rights. Theoretical circles also generally believe that the most important significance of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence lies in embodying the constitutional value of litigation exercise and ensuring the implementation of the exercise procedure. Therefore, the constitutional basis establishes the unshakable position of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in China's criminal legal system. This position will not lose its legislative rationality because of the lack or improper application of individual cases, but will become increasingly stable with the deepening and strengthening of the concept of "ruling the country according to law" in China.