疲劳审讯认定与审查实证研究——基于2012-2018年1095份裁判文书的分析

Definition and Review of Fatigue Interrogation:An Analysis of 1095 Verdicts from 2012 to 2018

根据最高人民法院《关于建立健全防范刑事冤假错案工作机制的意见》规定,疲劳审讯属于非法取证行为,以疲劳审讯方法所收集的言词证据应予排除。这一点虽已成共识,但如何认定疲劳审讯却始终无据可依。通过对2012年至2018年间1095份有关疲劳审讯的裁判文书进行实证分析可以发现,有不少法院已经开展对疲劳审讯所得供述进行排除的实践探索,但囿于疲劳审讯认定标准的阙如,各法院在疲劳审讯的认定与审查方面均呈现显著差异。57份对疲劳审讯所得供述予以排除的案例显示,司法实践中存在以时间标准、痛苦规则、无法证明取证合法性三种理由的排除。但即使以时间为认定标准的排除,所依赖的时间依据也不尽相同。其余1038份未直接认定疲劳审讯的案例表明,控方对疲劳审讯缺乏有针对性的证明,法院审查的实质在于保障供述的真实性而非合法性。无论法院最终是否认定疲劳审讯,司法运行中均存在认定标准"差异化"、审查判断"形式化"、非法证据"合法化"的运行偏差,亟须明确统一的疲劳审讯认定标准及相关保障机制,为法院裁判与侦查取证提供规范化指引。

According to Opinions on Establishing and Improving the Working Mechanism of Preventing Wrongful Conviction issued by the Supreme People’s Court,fatigue interrogation is an illegal means of evidence collection,and confessions gathered in this way shall be excluded.However,there is no standard definition of fatigue interrogation.An analysis of 1095 Verdicts from 2012 to 2018 demonstrates that many courts have tried to exclude confessions obtained from fatigue interrogation.However,without a general definition of fatigue interrogation,significant differences can be seen in different courts’defining and reviewing.57 verdicts excluded the confessions from fatigue interrogation,showing that there are three dimensions in judicial practices-time standard,pain rule,and being unable to prove the legitimacy of evidence collection.Even for time standard,there are different temporal bases.The remaining 1038 verdicts suggest that prosecutors did not present explicit proofs,and courts focused on authenticity rather than legitimacy.No matter whether or not the court identifies fatigue interrogation,there are operational deviations in judicial practices,such as differentiation of standard definition,formalization of judgment and legalization of illegal confession.In this setting,a standard definition of fatigue interrogation and relevant mechanisms should be specified to provide normative guidance for trial and evidence collection.