Can interrogation transcripts without criminal trial be used as evidence in civil casesAs for the transcripts submitted by the parties and produced by the public security organs during the investigati

Can interrogation transcripts without criminal trial be used as evidence in civil casesAs for the transcripts submitted by the parties and produced by the public security organs during the investigation of criminal cases, this court believes that because the transcripts have not been submitted by the People's Court, A criminal judgment is used as evidence, so the contents of the transcript should be cross-examined, reviewed, judged, and authenticated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Civil Procedure Law and the Evidence Rules of the Supreme People's Court. The person under investigation in the above-mentioned transcript did not appear in court for questioning, and there is no other objective evidence in this case to prove the circumstances described in the above-mentioned transcript, so the above-mentioned transcript cannot be used as evidence. 1. From the perspective of evidence form, criminal investigation records do not comply with the evidence forms stipulated in the Civil Procedure Law. Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Law stipulates that "evidence includes the following types: (1) documentary evidence, (2) physical evidence, (3) audio-visual materials, (4) witness testimony, (5) the parties' Statement, (6), appraisal conclusion, (7), investigation transcript." It can be seen from Article 63 that there are only seven forms of enumeration of civil evidence in my country's Civil Procedure Law, and any material that does not conform to these seven forms cannot be used as evidence. What form of evidence do criminal investigation records belong to? The first thing that can be excluded is audio-visual materials, physical evidence, witness testimonies, appraisal conclusions, and inspection records. The more likely ones are documentary evidence and statements from the parties. Documentary evidence is the content of evidence that proves the facts of the case. Criminal investigation transcripts are only records of the interrogation process of criminal suspects by the investigative agency and cannot prove the facts of the case. Judging from the provisions on evidence forms in the Criminal Procedure Law, the criminal suspect's confession is a form of evidence that is parallel to documentary evidence and is not a type of documentary evidence. Criminal investigation transcripts are not party statements. Party statements refer to statements of case facts during civil litigation. Statements outside of litigation cannot be used as a form of evidence for "party statements." It can also be seen from the provision in the "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Procedure" that "concessions during the mediation process cannot be used as evidence" that the Civil Procedure Law has strict restrictions on the form of evidence such as "statements of the parties". 2. Judging from the source of evidence, criminal investigation records are illegal as evidence in civil litigation. Criminal investigation activities are severe measures taken by state power agencies in accordance with the law to investigate criminal suspects' criminal liability. They are the most severe restrictions on citizens' personal freedom. They should be carried out in strict accordance with legal procedures. During the investigation and understanding process, materials must be kept strictly confidential. Used in criminal cases. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that agencies and defense lawyers have the right to copy investigation transcripts. Outsiders cannot copy in investigation transcripts. If an outsider holds the evidence, its source should be illegal. According to the illegal evidence exclusion rules, the evidence It cannot be used as evidence and should be excluded from investigation. 3. From the perspective of the effectiveness of evidence, the probative effectiveness of investigation records is extremely weak. The Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that only the defendant's confession, without evidence to support it, cannot be used as the basis for finalizing a case. The investigation transcript is essentially the confession of the criminal suspect and cannot be directly used as the basis for finalizing the case. During the criminal investigation process, the criminal suspect is in a passive and vulnerable position, and his statements may not reflect his true inner meaning. The formation of criminal investigation records may also involve torture to extract confessions. In order to absolve themselves of guilt, criminal suspects will make some hesitant confessions, the authenticity of which is extremely unreliable. During the public prosecution stage, the court will determine the authenticity of the evidence in combination with other evidence. In the process of civil litigation, the judge cannot and does not need to know all the facts of the entire criminal case, nor can he determine the authenticity of the contents of the investigation transcript. If such direct evidence of unknown authenticity is brought into civil litigation, then the case will be The truth can only be that its authenticity is unknown. In both civil cases and criminal cases, civil cases are often based on the facts found in criminal cases. However, "taking the facts identified in criminal cases as the basis for finalization" is in compliance with the provisions of the Civil Procedure Law. Matters identified by the court are "facts confirmed by the People's Court's effective judgment" in the rules of the Civil Procedure Law, and the parties do not need to provide evidence. Proof, in compliance with the rules of evidence. Since the interrogation transcript is part of the investigation file, it cannot appear in civil litigation. It is necessary to point out that how did the party obtain such an interrogation transcript of a case that has been dismissed? Who gave it to him? Does he have the right to get it? Without rights, what validity would such illegal evidence have? In addition, it can also be pointed out that the intervention of public power in private disputes itself destroys the principle of equal status of both parties in civil litigation. How can the evidence obtained by public power require the other party to refute, causing the phenomenon of evidence inversion? This is also inconsistent with the rules of evidence. (Reprinted)? >>>