(2) "The investigators also searched Li's residence, extracted and seized Li's shoes and other items, and did not produce a search warrant on the spot." Investigators searched the seized items such as Li's shoes, which are all physical evidence. According to Article 54, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Law, if the collection of material evidence and documentary evidence does not conform to legal procedures and may seriously affect judicial justice, it shall be corrected or a reasonable explanation shall be made; If it can't be corrected or a reasonable explanation can't 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, evidence that should be excluded in the process of investigation, prosecution and trial shall be excluded according to law and shall not be used as the basis for prosecution opinions, prosecution decisions and judgments. It can be seen that the organs responsible for excluding illegal evidence in this case are Donghu Public Security Bureau, Donghu Procuratorate and Donghu Intermediate People's Court.
For Li's theft, there was a security guard's identification and Li's confession, which was verified by verification. Therefore, Li should be convicted of theft.
For Li's robbery, it can only be proved that the confessions collected by illegal methods such as extorting a confession by torture and the physical evidence collected in violation of legal procedures do not meet the three requirements of "the evidence is true and sufficient" stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 53 of the Criminal Procedure Law. "(a) the facts of conviction and sentencing are proved by evidence; (2) The evidence on which the final decision is based has been verified by legal procedures; (3) According to the evidence of the whole case, the ascertained facts have been beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, according to the provisions of Article 195 of the Criminal Procedure Law, the evidence is insufficient, the accused charges cannot be established, and a verdict of innocence should be made.
4. Combined with this case, briefly explain the value of criminal procedure law to ensure the implementation of criminal law.
The value of the criminal procedure law in ensuring the implementation of criminal law includes: first, it provides organizational guarantee for investigating and clarifying the facts of the case and applying the criminal substantive law by clearly exercising the special organs of criminal case investigation, prosecution and trial power. Second, the Criminal Procedure Law provides a basic framework for investigating and finding out the facts of the case and applying the criminal substantive law by clearly exercising the right of investigation, the right of prosecution, the rights and responsibilities of the subject of judicial power and the rights and obligations of the participants in the proceedings. At the same time, because there are clear activities and procedures, it also provides a guarantee for the orderly application of criminal substantive law. Thirdly, the method of collecting evidence and the rules of using evidence are stipulated, which not only provides the means to obtain evidence and clarify the facts of the case, but also provides procedural norms for collecting and using evidence. Fourthly, the design of the program system can avoid and reduce the errors in the case entity to a certain extent. Fifth, according to different cases or different situations, different targeted procedures are designed to make the handling of cases simple and complicated and ensure the efficiency of handling cases.
In this case, the Criminal Procedure Law regulates the collection procedures and applicable rules of evidence, allowing the specialized organs exercising the powers of investigation, prosecution and trial to exclude the evidence collected by illegal means such as extorting confessions by torture, accurately and timely ascertain the facts of crimes, correctly apply the law, punish criminals, protect innocent people from criminal investigation, and avoid the occurrence of unjust, false and misjudged cases. At the same time, in this case, through the mutual restraint and supervision mechanism of the special organs exercising the powers of investigation, prosecution and trial, the correct implementation of the criminal law is guaranteed, the goals of punishing crimes and safeguarding human rights are guaranteed, and the realization of the criminal law is guaranteed through effective procedural mechanisms.
5. Combined with this case, briefly describe the improvement process of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence, and clarify the litigation value of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence.
(1) The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence refers to the evidence obtained by illegal means in violation of legal procedures. In principle, it has no evidential capacity and cannot be accepted by the court. It includes excluding illegal verbal evidence and illegal physical evidence.
In China, in order to ensure the legality of evidence collection, the Criminal Procedure Law and related judicial interpretations have stipulated strict procedures for the collection, fixation, preservation, examination and judgment, verification and verification of evidence.
1996 Article 43 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that it is strictly forbidden to extort confessions by torture or collect evidence by threats, enticements, deception or other illegal means. 1998 "the Supreme People's Court's interpretation on several issues of implementation" stipulates in article 6 1 that it is strictly forbidden to collect evidence by illegal means. Witnesses' testimony, victim's statements and defendant's statements obtained by extorting a confession by torture or by threats, enticements and deception cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case. 1999 The Rules of Criminal Procedure of the People's Procuratorate of the Supreme People's Procuratorate also stipulates that witness testimony, victim's statement and criminal suspect's statement collected by illegal means such as extorting a confession by torture cannot be used as the basis for accusing a crime.
June 20 10 "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases" and "Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Examination and Judgment of Evidence in Handling Death Penalty Cases" made clear and specific provisions on the exclusionary rules of illegal evidence in China. On the one hand, clarify the scope of illegal evidence exclusion. Article 1 of the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases stipulates that confessions of criminal suspects and defendants obtained by illegal means such as extorting confessions by torture, witness testimony and victim statements obtained by illegal means such as violence and threats are illegal verbal evidence. Article 2 stipulates that illegal verbal evidence confirmed according to law should be excluded and cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case. Article 14 stipulates that if the acquisition of material evidence and documentary evidence obviously violates the law and may affect a fair trial, it should be corrected or given a reasonable explanation, otherwise it cannot be used as the basis for finalizing the case. On the other hand, the exclusion procedure of pre-trial confession illegally obtained by the defendant is clarified.
The revised Criminal Procedure Law of 20 12 absorbs the relevant contents of the Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases, and adds three exclusionary rules of illegal evidence: First, the scope of exclusion. That is, the provisions of Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Law. The second is court investigation, including filing, giving evidence and handling. Namely, 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.
The exclusion of evidence collected by illegal methods such as extorting confessions by torture in this case is an effective implementation of the 20 10 Rules for the Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases and the 20 12 Amendment to the Criminal Procedure Law.
(2) The litigation value of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is mainly reflected in the following three aspects:
First, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is conducive to protecting the human rights of criminal suspects and defendants and even the legitimate rights and interests of every citizen from infringement. The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence negatively evaluates the illegal evidence collection behavior such as extorting confessions by torture, which can make illegal evidence collectors bear unfavorable procedural and substantive results and eliminate the psychological motivation of illegal evidence collection, thus achieving the purpose of protecting the rights of litigation participants and protecting innocent people from being investigated. In this case, the exclusion of illegal evidence such as Li's confession is conducive to protecting Li's human rights, and at the same time warns judicial personnel to fully protect the legitimate rights and interests of litigation participants in future law enforcement.
Second, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is conducive to ensuring procedural justice and realizing the independent value of litigation procedures. The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence helps to urge the public security organs to strictly abide by the provisions of the criminal procedure law and realize the pursuit of procedural justice through procedural sanctions. By excluding illegal evidence such as Li's confession, this case highlights the independent value of the procedure and maintains the fairness of the procedure, which is an important embodiment of the value of procedural fairness.
Third, the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence is conducive to standardizing judicial behavior, safeguarding judicial authority and demonstrating the spirit of the rule of law. Whether the judicial behavior is legal and standardized is an important symbol to measure the degree of judicial civilization and the level of rule of law construction, which is related to the realization and establishment of judicial authority. If the judiciary illegally obtains evidence and takes the lead in breaking the law, it will seriously damage the image of the judiciary, damage the legal authority, and cause great damage to the legal belief 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 is conducive to curbing illegal evidence-obtaining behaviors such as extorting confessions by torture, prompting judicial organs and their staff to establish the judicial concept of paying equal attention to punishment and protection, and insisting on standardizing rational and civilized law enforcement, which is of great significance to establishing China's judicial authority.