(2) "Investigators also searched Li's residence and extracted evidence. Li's shoes and other items were seized without a search warrant on the spot. "Investigators searched the seized shoes and other items, which are physical evidence. According to the provisions of Article 54, Paragraph 1, of the Criminal Procedure Law. , if the collection of physical evidence or documentary evidence does not comply with legal procedures and may seriously affect judicial fairness, it should be corrected or a reasonable explanation should be given; if it cannot be corrected or a reasonable explanation cannot be given, it is illegal evidence and the evidence should be excluded.
2. According to the second paragraph of Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Law, if there is evidence that should be excluded during the investigation, prosecution, and trial processes, it shall be excluded in accordance with the law and shall not be used as a prosecution opinion, prosecution decision, or judgment. According to. It can be seen that the agencies responsible for excluding illegal evidence in this case include the Donghu Public Security Bureau, the Donghu Procuratorate and the Donghu Intermediate People’s Court.
3. Regarding Li’s theft, there was the identification of the security guard and Li’s confession. , was found to be true. Therefore, Li should be convicted of theft.
As for Li's robbery, it can only be proved that the confessions collected through illegal methods such as torture and the physical evidence collected in violation of legal procedures do not comply with the " The three requirements for “reliable and sufficient evidence” stipulated in Paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law: “(1) The facts of conviction and sentencing are supported by evidence; (2) The evidence on which the case is finalized has been verified through legal procedures. True; (3) Based on the evidence in the entire case, reasonable doubt has been eliminated as to the facts ascertained. Therefore, according to Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the evidence is insufficient and the charges cannot be established, and a verdict of not guilty should be made. .
4. Based on this case, briefly explain the value of the criminal procedure law in ensuring the implementation of criminal law: first, through the clear exercise of criminal law. Special organs with powers for case investigation, prosecution, and trial provide organizational guarantees for the investigation and clarification of case facts and the application of criminal substantive law. Second, the Criminal Procedure Law clearly defines the rights and responsibilities of subjects who exercise investigation power, prosecution power, judicial power, and litigation participation. The rights and obligations of persons provide a basic framework for investigating and clarifying case facts and applying criminal substantive law; at the same time, due to clear activities and procedures, it also provides a guarantee for the orderly application of criminal substantive law. Third, regulations. It provides methods for collecting evidence and rules for using evidence, which not only provides means to obtain evidence and clarify case facts, but also provides procedural specifications for collecting and using evidence. Fourth, the design of the procedural system can avoid and reduce cases to a certain extent. Errors in the entity. Fifth, different targeted procedures are designed for different cases or different situations to make the handling of cases simple and complex and ensure the efficiency of case handling.
In this case, the Criminal Procedure Law regulates the collection procedures and application rules of evidence, allowing specialized agencies that exercise powers of investigation, prosecution, and trial to exclude evidence collected by illegal means such as torture to extract confessions, accurately and accurately Promptly identify criminal facts, correctly apply the law, punish criminals, protect innocent people from criminal prosecution, and avoid unjust, false and wrongful convictions. At the same time, in this case, the correct implementation of the criminal law, the goals of punishing crimes and protecting human rights, and the goals of punishing crimes and protecting human rights are ensured through the mutual restraint and supervision mechanism of specialized agencies that exercise powers of investigation, prosecution, and trial. Effective procedural mechanisms ensure that implementation of criminal law.
5. Based on this case, briefly describe the improvement process of the illegal evidence exclusion rule, and clarify the litigation value of the illegal evidence exclusion rule.
(1) The illegal evidence exclusion rule refers to evidence that violates legal procedures and is obtained by illegal means. In principle, it does not have evidence capacity and cannot be accepted by the court. It includes the exclusion of illegal verbal evidence as well as illegal physical evidence.
In our country, in order to ensure the legality of evidence collection, the Criminal Procedure Law and relevant judicial interpretations stipulate strict procedures for the collection, fixation, preservation, review and judgment, verification and verification of evidence.
Article 43 of the 1996 Criminal Procedure Law stipulates: It is strictly prohibited to use torture to extract confessions and to collect evidence by threats, inducements, deception or other illegal methods. Article 61 of the 1998 "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Implementation" stipulates that collecting evidence by illegal means is strictly prohibited. Witness testimonies, victim statements, and defendant statements obtained through several illegal methods such as torture, threats, inducements, and deceptions cannot be used as the basis for finalizing a case. The 1999 "People's Procuratorate Criminal Procedure Rules" of the Supreme People's Procuratorate also stipulates that witness testimonies, victim statements, and criminal suspect confessions collected through illegal means such as torture cannot be used as the basis for charging crimes.
In June 2010, the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in the Handling of Criminal Cases" and the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Examination and Judgment of Evidence in the Handling of Death Penalty Cases" made clear and specific rules on the exclusion of illegal evidence in my country. Regulation. On the one hand, it is necessary to clarify the scope of illegal evidence exclusion. Article 1 of the "Regulations on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in the Handling of Criminal Cases" stipulates that confessions of criminal suspects and defendants obtained by illegal means such as torture, and witness testimonies and victim statements obtained by illegal means such as violence, threats, etc. It is illegal speech evidence. Article 2 stipulates that illegal speech evidence confirmed in accordance with the law shall be excluded and cannot be used as the basis for finalizing a case. Article 14 stipulates that if the acquisition of physical evidence or documentary evidence clearly violates legal provisions and may affect a fair trial, it must be corrected or a reasonable explanation must be given, otherwise it cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case. On the other hand, the procedure for excluding pre-trial confessions illegally obtained by the defendant is clarified.
The Criminal Procedure Law revised in 2012 absorbed the relevant content of the "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in the Handling of Criminal Cases" and added three aspects of illegal evidence exclusion rules: First, the scope of exclusion. That is the provisions of Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The second is court investigation, including case filing, evidence presentation, and processing. That is, Articles 56, 57 and 58 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Third, legal supervision. That is the provisions of Article 55 of the Criminal Procedure Law.
This case excludes evidence collected by illegal methods such as torture to extract confessions, which is an effective implementation of the 2010 "Rules for the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Criminal Cases" and the 2012 "Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law".
(2) The litigation value of the illegal evidence exclusion rule is mainly reflected in the following three aspects:
First, the illegal evidence exclusion rule is conducive to protecting the human rights of criminal suspects and defendants. Even the legitimate rights and interests of every citizen shall not be violated. Illegal evidence exclusion rules negatively evaluate illegal evidence collection behaviors such as torture to extract confessions, which can make illegal evidence collectors bear adverse procedural and substantive consequences, eliminate the psychological motivation of illegal evidence collection, thereby protecting the rights of litigation participants and protecting innocent people from purpose of investigation. In this case, excluding illegal evidence such as Li's confession is conducive to protecting Li's human rights, and at the same time warns judicial officers to fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of litigation participants in future law enforcement.
Second, the rule of excluding illegal evidence is conducive to ensuring procedural justice and realizing the independent value of litigation procedures. The rules for excluding illegal evidence help urge public security organs to strictly abide by the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and achieve the pursuit of procedural justice through procedural sanctions. By excluding illegal evidence such as Li's confession, this case demonstrated the independent value of the procedure and maintained the fairness of the procedure, which is an important manifestation of the value of procedural fairness.
Third, the rules for excluding illegal evidence are conducive to standardizing judicial behavior, maintaining judicial authority, and demonstrating the spirit of the rule of law. Whether judicial behavior is legal and standardized is an important indicator of the degree of judicial civilization and the level of rule of law construction, and is related to the realization and establishment of judicial authority. If the judicial organs collect evidence illegally and take the lead in breaking the law, it will seriously damage the image of the judicial organs, undermine the legal authority, and cause great damage to the legal beliefs and the spirit of the rule of law in the whole society.
The exclusion of illegal evidence such as Li's confession in this case will help curb illegal evidence-gathering practices such as torture to extract confessions, encourage judicial organs and their staff to establish a judicial concept of equal emphasis on punishment and protection, and adhere to standardized, rational and civilized law enforcement, which is of great significance to establishing my country's judicial authority.