非法证据排除的实践表达

The empirical perspective of the exclusionary rule on illegally obtained evidence

对228件案件的刑事裁判文书分析可以发现,实践中,非法证据排除申请明显呈现出案件类型集中、申请排除的证据种类集中、申请排除证据的理由集中的"三集中"现象。对于非法证据排除申请,检察院、法院探索形成类型化的应对策略和处理方式。当前,非法证据排除规则的实践运作存在被告人及其辩护律师滥用申请与申请能力不足并存、检察院怠于履行证明责任与举证手段有限并存、法院认知偏差与怠于严格执行非法证据排除规则并存等三大结构性难题。对此,应通过纠正控辩审三方对非法证据排除规则的认知偏差、细化非法证据排除规则、切实强化被告人及其辩护律师申请排除非法证据的能力、进一步落实检察院的举证责任、充分调动人民法院严格执行非法证据排除规则的积极性等加以解决。

Based on analysis of 228 criminal case decisions, the filings for excluding illegal evidence present three special features, which are 1） cases mostly within the same special type, 2） evidence fi led to be excluded mostly within the same type, and 3） the reasons for applying for excluding the evidence mostly the same. To respond the application of excluding illegally obtained evidence, the court and the procuratorate have developed stereotypical strategies and treatments. At present, there are three structural diffi culties in applying the exclusionary rule： the coexistence of the defendant and counsel＇s abuse of the power to fi ling applications to exclude the illegal evidence and the defendant and counsel＇s insufficient capacity to file applications to exclude the illegal evidence, the coexistence of the procuratorate＇s passive performance in implementing the proof burden and the limited methods to introduce evidence, and the coexistence of the court＇s offset cognition and passive performance in strictly applying the exclusionary rule. In order to solve these problems, we should correct the cognitive bias of exclusionary rule that is maintained by the judge, prosecutor and the accused, refi ne the exclusionary rule, strengthen the defendant and counsel＇s ability of fi ling application for excluding illegal evidence, force the procuratorate undertaking the proof burden, and fully mobilize the court enthusiasm of strictly implementing of exclusionary rule.