摘要
2012年《刑事诉讼法》确立的非法证据排除规则,在运行路径上分为排除法则与瑕疵证据补正法则两种范式。立法没有明确规定例外情形,瑕疵证据补正规则在实质层面承载着排除法则的功能。其正当运行以准确划分非法证据与瑕疵证据为前提,但司法实践却折射出规则的内部结构性缺陷:非法证据与瑕疵证据的界限模糊,不仅导致排除法则范围不明确,诸多违法所获得的证据也难以涵盖其中,而且瑕疵证据补正规则往往成为非法证据不排除的方便之门。破解这种结构性困境的思路是,通过司法解释构建覆盖面广、刚性的排除法则,并通过指导性案例渐进地发展精致而实用的例外法则。
The exclusionary rule of criminal procedure established in 2012 is divided into two operational paradigms：exclusion for illegal evidence and correction for defective evidence. There is no specific provision in the legislation for exceptions, defective evidence rules in the aspect of substantial connection with the correcting function of the law. Its proper operation is on the premise of accurate division of illegal evidence and defective evidence, but the judicial practice reflects the rule of internal structural defects ： the illegal evidence and defec- tive evidence is blurred, not only leading to exclusion rule range, difficult to include many illegally obtained evidence, but the correction rules of defective evidence often become the acceptance path of illegal evidence The way to solve this structural dilemma is to build a rigid and diversified exclusionary rule through the judicial interpretation, and to develop the refined and practical exceptions to exclusionary rule through the guiding cases issued by the Supreme Court gradually.
出处
《现代法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2015年第4期184-193,共10页
Modern Law Science
基金
北京市社会科学基金项目"北京市运行非法证据排除规则实证研究"(14FXB016)
关键词
结构性困境
排除规则
例外法则
指导性案例
structural defects
exclusionary rule
exceptions to exclusionary rule
judicial interpretation
