同步录音录像口供功能的证成及适用

Taking synchronized audio-video recording as evidence of confession and its application

作为一项口供证据,同步录音录像与讯问笔录在反映被告人口供内容的诉讼功能上并无不同,但相比主观化的讯问笔录,采用客观中立的同步录音录像显然更能顺应法院裁判对真实性偏好的选择,不应以其形式特殊一概否定同步录音录像口供功能的正当性。同步录音录像作为口供构成诉讼案卷的组成部分,是讯问笔录的补充性证据载体,应当建立差异化随案移送和完备的开示规则。要发挥同步录音录像的口供功能,需要从同步录音录像作为口供的完整性要求出发确立一些证据能力规则,并明确强制性排除的违反法律后果,强化外在制度保障。同时,实质性差异的界分标准为同步录音录像作为口供提供了不同的证明力规则,需要重视其在限制被告人翻供问题上的积极意义。

Synchronized audio-video recordings,as evidence of confession,have no difference with custodial interrogation transcripts in the litigation function of revealing the content of the confession.However,compared with subjective interrogation transcripts,objective and neutral synchronized audio-video recordings are obviously more in line with the court’s preference for authenticity.So the legitimacy of the synchronized audio-video recordings being used as evidence of confession should not be denied because of the special form.Synchronized audio-video recordings,as evidence of confession,are integral parts of the case file,and the supplementary evidence to the custodial interrogation transcripts.Differentiated handover rules and complete discovery rules should be established.In order to allow synchronized audio-video recordings to be functioned as evidence,it is necessary to establish some evidentiary capacity rules which will fulfill the needs of guaranteeing the completeness of synchronized audio-video recordings,to clarify the legal consequences of mandatory exclusion,and to strengthen the external guarantee mechanism.At the same time,the dividing standard of substantive differences gives birth to different probative value rules for synchronized audio-video recordings as evidence of confession.And it is necessary to pay attention to its positive significance in preventing the defendant from retracting the confession.