The discovery of evidence system began in Britain in the19th century, and has been paid attention to by all countries since then. The discovery system of evidence in various countries has its own development and improvement process. There are also differences in the specific scope, methods, restrictions and sanctions of evidence discovery. In the reform of trial mode in China, some areas have tried to exchange evidence before trial, but there are still many problems, among which the operational environment problems such as litigation system, legal environment and litigation concept are particularly worth pondering and studying. The so-called evidence discovery system means that the facts and materials known by the parties or the third party outside the lawsuit should be disclosed to the other party as long as they are related to the case, except those protected by secret privilege. Any party has the right to ask the other party and the third party outside the lawsuit to disclose the above matters.
In the past criminal proceedings, defense lawyers usually only got very simple indictment and technical appraisal materials from the procuratorate before the trial, but they didn't see the statements of the parties that were very important or even decisive for the defense. On the contrary, the procuratorate, as a state organ, has strong judicial resources and national coercive power as the backing, which can not only grasp a lot of first-hand evidence to support its allegations, but also exert influence on the investigation and evidence collection of defense lawyers.
The direct consequence of this is that defense lawyers are often passive in criminal proceedings because the evidence is far less powerful than that of the prosecution, so the court often applies for an adjournment for supplementary investigation. This not only greatly reduces the efficiency of the trial, but also leads to a long delay in the trial. More importantly, the improper weakening of the defense force has greatly weakened the protection of the defendant's legitimate rights and interests. Procedural defects have damaged the substantive justice of the case trial.
The core spirit of discovery of evidence is precisely to ensure the fair opportunity of the rights of both parties in litigation from the procedure, so that both parties can achieve equality as much as possible. The exchange of all the evidence that may be presented in court before the trial can make both parties aware of the use of each other's evidence at every step of the trial process, thus realizing the prosecution and defense more effectively. For defense lawyers, this procedure guarantees their prophetic rights and will undoubtedly avoid passivity to the maximum extent and realize effective defense; Another great advantage of discovery of evidence is that it can avoid frequent application for adjournment for supplementary investigation, which is conducive to improving the fairness and efficiency of the trial and protecting the legitimate rights and interests of the parties more effectively.
Legal basis:
Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 192 The public prosecutor, the parties, their defenders and agents ad litem have objections to the witness testimony, which has a great influence on the conviction and sentencing of the case. If the people's court deems it necessary for the witness to testify in court, the witness shall testify in court.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall apply to the people's police who testify in court and testify about the criminal acts they witnessed while performing their duties.
If the public prosecutor, the parties, the defenders and the agents ad litem have objections to the expert opinion, and the people's court deems it necessary for the expert to appear in court, the expert shall testify in court. If the appraiser refuses to testify in court after being notified by the people's court, the appraisal opinion shall not be used as the basis for finalizing the case.