Probative Values and Their Affecting Factors of Criminal Investigation Records

Following improvements in evidential thinking,more questions have been raised about the probative values of criminal investigation records;therefore,there is an urgent need to investigate the prominent problems with this system for keeping investigation notes and evidence.The binding 2013 Criminal Procedural Law of the People’s Republic of China lists the victim’s statement,defendant’s confession or defence,inspection,examination,identification,and investigation notes as statutory evidence.Technically,these criminal investigation records are naturally legally admissible as evidenced in criminal justice procedures.However,the Miranda rules of the United States,which guarantee the defendant’s right to silence,have not been established in China's Mainland.Consequently,the objectivity of those kinds of criminal investigation records can be questioned during cross‑examination.Comparative and systematic research methods were used to examine the probative values and their affecting factors in criminal investigation records.The results show that it is not easy to obtain the full probative value of criminal investigation records because it involves analyses of issues such as understanding the notes,procedures,and methods in making the records,as well as the reform of related systems,such as transplanting the Miranda rules to secure the defendant’s right to silence and the presence of counsel.Only in this way can we expect evidence used in criminal investigation records to be used scientifically by ensuring that evidence of criminal acts are kept free from irrational contamination and resolve the existing related problems in judicial practice.

Reformation of the Judicial Appraisal Adoption System used by Party Institutions Entrusted by the Investigation Agency in Criminal Proceedings

The new requirements of trial-centered litigation in China are a concrete manifestation of the reform of the rule of law under Xi Jinping’s new socialist era.The effective implementation of judicial appraisal lays a solid foundation for the correct identification of facts,accurate conviction,and sentencing,and technically,it should guarantee a fair trial.However,in practice,judicial appraisal opinion carries the risk of a diminished trial that deviates from the trial-centered requirement to substantiate a charge and can easily lead to unjust cases.This paper seeks to discuss the system of identification of property loss involved in criminal proceedings,which is implemented by a third‑party appraisal institution entrusted by the investigation agency,and highlights the fact that the third-party appraisal institutions in judicial practice are currently reliant on cooperative thinking,but countenance the lack of a mechanism for effective accountability,and the court’s propensity for theirsupport.This leads to the verification components of the trial being depreciated,which may lessen the validity of the appraisal opinion(substantiation).In response to this problem,the author hopes to provide some suggestions to assist third-party appraisal agencies in the completion of judicial appraisal and achievement of their trial‑centered reform goal by rationalizing the relationship between the investigation agency and identification institution,establishing a hierarchical accountability mechanism,and improving the rules governing testimony in court.