Examination and Judgment of Criminal Evidence (1) Examination and Judgment of the Content of the Evidence 1. Examination and Judgment of the Objectivity of the Evidence 2. Examination and Judgment of the Relevance of the Evidence 3. Examination and Judgment of the Legality of the Evidence 4. Examination and Judgment of the Integrity of the Evidence Refers to the Use of Evidence to Prove Evidence of the true circumstances of a case must be a unified whole composed of a series of individual pieces of evidence. As far as the evidence of the entire case is concerned, the integrity of the evidence is determined by the integrity of the facts of the case. The facts of the case are composed of a series of elements such as time, place, characters, means, consequences, purpose, and motivation. Therefore, the evidence for the entire case must also consist of evidence proving all the elements of the case. Otherwise, all the facts of the case will not be proven. In practice, the vast majority of cases where the People's Procuratorate refuses to approve arrests or returns them for supplementary investigation on the grounds of "insufficient evidence" are due to investigators failing to seriously determine the integrity of the evidence. 5. Review and judge the consistency of the evidence. The consistency of the evidence means that the evidence in the case must be able to corroborate and coordinate with each other, and * * * prove the truth of the case. The so-called consistency means that there are no unexplainable contradictions. 6. Review and judge the uniqueness of evidence The uniqueness of evidence means that the evidence in a case can not only prove the truth of the case, but also eliminate any other possibility, making the conclusion drawn from the evidence unique. The evidence proving a particular element of the case must be the same as the evidence proving the facts of the case as a whole. Theoretically, uniqueness is a basic requirement for criminal evidence. In practice, some investigators often only focus on whether the available evidence can lead to a conclusion, but often ignore whether the conclusion is unique and whether other possibilities can be ruled out. (2) Basic methods for reviewing and judging evidence 1. Self-analysis method Self-analysis method is the most basic method to judge the reliability of a single piece of evidence by analyzing the content and form of a single piece of evidence, and the relationship between content and form. (1) Examine whether the content of a single piece of evidence is consistent and whether there are unexplained contradictions. (2) Review whether the content and form of individual evidence are consistent. 2. Whether the source of the source analysis method is reliable directly affects the reliability of the evidence. (1) Check whether the evidence is original or transmitted. To determine whether a certain piece of evidence is original evidence or transmitted evidence, it is necessary to examine when, where and under what circumstances the evidence was obtained. Obtained from relevant places; whether it was provided by someone who heard and witnessed the facts of the case in person, or by someone who relayed other people's statements, etc. (2) All items and traces of unknown origin, hearsay, groundless rumors, and speculation can only be used as "clues" for reference and must not be used as evidence. Due to unknown origin, its reliability cannot be determined. 3. Formation condition analysis method (1) Examine the objective environment in which the evidence was produced. The objective environment in which evidence is produced refers to various natural conditions when evidence is produced, such as time, place, light, wind direction, distance, temperature, location, etc. Evidence produced in a specific environment cannot be unaffected by the environment. Objective circumstances can both help the evidence truthfully reflect the facts of the case and maintain them, and can also cause the evidence to change. When examining the objective environment of the evidence, we should pay attention to the following issues: First, whether the physical evidence and documentary evidence have undergone qualitative or quantitative changes due to the objective environment. If it rains or snows, the traces extracted on site will change. Second, examine whether witnesses, criminal suspects, defendants, and victims have inaccurate perceptions or illusions due to environmental characteristics, resulting in inaccurate testimony, confessions, and statements. For example, whether the witness can clearly see the facts he provided under certain light and distance conditions. When U.S. President Lincoln was a lawyer, he defended Armstrong Jr., the son of his late friend, in a money murder case. By reading the documents, Lincoln discovered that the key to accusing the defendant of killing for money lay in the testimony of a witness named Folson on the plaintiff's side: "I witnessed with my own eyes little Armstrong shoot the victim on the evening of October 18th." In this regard, according to As was customary, Lincoln asked Folsom a question in court: Lincoln: Do you swear to recognize Little Armstrong? Yes. Lincoln: You are behind the haystack, and little Armstrong is under the big tree. The two places were twenty or thirty feet apart. Can you clearly identify them? Jefferson: I can see clearly because the moonlight is bright. Lincoln: Are you sure you didn't recognize him from his clothes? Folsom: No. I must have recognized his face because the moonlight shone right on it. Lincoln: Are you sure it's eleven o'clock at night? I'm absolutely sure. Because I got home and looked at the clock. It was a quarter past eleven.
When Lincoln asked about it, he delivered a convincing defense to the audience in the gallery: "I cannot help telling everyone that this witness is a complete liar." He insisted that he had The defendant's face was recognized in the moonlight at eleven o'clock in the evening. Please think about it. That was the first winding on October 18th. At eleven o'clock in the evening, the moon had already set. Where is the moon? To take a step back, maybe he couldn't remember the time clearly. It was a little earlier, but the moonlight should have been shining from west to east at that time, with the haystacks in the east and the trees in the west. If the defendant's face was toward the haystack, there could be no moonlight on his face. How could the witness clearly see the defendant's face from the haystack twenty or thirty meters away? "The witness Jefferson was completely refuted, but the young Armstrong was acquitted. Third, examine whether the interrogator, examiner, and appraiser reached incorrect inspection, inspection records, or appraisal conclusions due to environmental influences. ( 2) Examine the motivation and purpose of the person who provides the evidence. The first aspect is to examine whether the person who provides the evidence has an interest in the case, the parties to the case, and the victim; the second is to examine whether the person who provides the evidence is of good quality (3). Review the professional ability, work attitude and relationship with the case of the person who collects evidence. (4) Review whether the method of collecting and preserving evidence is scientific and legal. 4. The comparative method refers to comparing certain evidence with case facts, other evidence and scientific common sense. The method of making comparisons to determine whether the evidence is true includes: (1) Checking whether the evidence is consistent with the facts of the case. Evidence that contradicts the facts of the case must be false. (2) Checking whether the evidence is consistent with the evidence. There are unexplained contradictions. Different evidence proving the same fact in a case and the entire case must be coordinated and corroborated with each other. If they are inconsistent and cannot be reasonably explained, it means that some of the evidence is unreliable. If a single evidence is contradictory, one must be false (or both are false); if multiple evidence is contradictory, it should be noted that different evidence proving the same fact in a case is caused by different subjective and objective conditions. Normal differences cannot be used as a basis to deny the authenticity of the evidence. (3) Examine whether the evidence is consistent with other relevant facts, such as scientific common sense, customs, historical facts, rules and regulations, natural conditions, lifestyle, dialect, etc., which may become inconsistent with the evidence. Relevant facts related to the evidence. 5. System analysis method refers to the method of using systematic principles to analyze the evidence of the entire case to determine whether the evidence is sufficient. It can be carried out from the following aspects: (1) From the stage of the crime. It is said that every case must have evidence to prove the whole process of crime. The whole process of crime can be divided into three stages: crime preparation, crime execution and crime completion. Each stage is composed of a series of elements that can only be proved by the evidence of the whole case. (2) From the perspective of the constituent elements of a crime, each crime must consist of four elements: legal subject, subjective aspect, object and objective aspect. Each of these elements includes different elements. Elements. The evidence in the entire case must prove all the elements in order to satisfy the requirement of sufficient evidence
.