论拒绝辩护方查证申请的正当事由

On Justified Reasons for Refusing the Defense's Application for Investigation of Evidence

成果信息
DC信息
传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

归属学者：

李昌盛

归属院系：

法学院

作者：

李昌盛1

摘要：

我国《刑事诉讼法》虽然赋予了辩护方查证申请权,但只字不提司法机关同意与否的条件,完全交由司法机关自由裁量。司法解释虽然将有无查证必要性作为同意与否的条件,但由于十分模糊,可谓聊胜于无。在司法实务中,司法机关大多以"相反事实业已得到证明"为由否决辩方的查证申请。这种将证据评价活动提前至证据调查环节的判断标准不仅违背诉讼认识规律,也使辩护方无法有效参与诉讼,极有可能导致错案。为了防止司法人员恣意行使裁量权,有必要在尊重司法规律的基础上明确限定司法机关拒绝辩护方查证申请的具体事由和判断标准。

出版日期：

2020-07-27

学科：

诉讼法学

收录：

CSSCI; 中国科技核心期刊

提交日期：

2020-08-07

引用参考：

李昌盛. 论拒绝辩护方查证申请的正当事由[J]. 安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版),2020(04):69-76.

全文附件授权许可：

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 论拒绝辩护方查证申请的正当事由
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 李昌盛
  • dc.contributor.author
  • LI Chang-sheng;Research Center of Procedure Law and Judicial Reform, Southwest University of Political Science and Law
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 西南政法大学诉讼法与司法改革研究中心
  • dc.publisher
  • 安徽师范大学学报(人文社会科学版)
  • dc.publisher
  • Journal of Anhui Normal University(Hum.& Soc.Sci.)
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2020
  • dc.identifier.issue
  • 04
  • dc.identifier.volume
  • v.48;No.231
  • dc.identifier.page
  • 69-76
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2020-07-27
  • dc.subject
  • 申请调查取证;必要性;预断证明力
  • dc.subject
  • application for investigation of evidence;necessity;prejudgment of probative force
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 我国《刑事诉讼法》虽然赋予了辩护方查证申请权,但只字不提司法机关同意与否的条件,完全交由司法机关自由裁量。司法解释虽然将有无查证必要性作为同意与否的条件,但由于十分模糊,可谓聊胜于无。在司法实务中,司法机关大多以"相反事实业已得到证明"为由否决辩方的查证申请。这种将证据评价活动提前至证据调查环节的判断标准不仅违背诉讼认识规律,也使辩护方无法有效参与诉讼,极有可能导致错案。为了防止司法人员恣意行使裁量权,有必要在尊重司法规律的基础上明确限定司法机关拒绝辩护方查证申请的具体事由和判断标准。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Although China's Criminal Procedure Law gives the defense the right to apply for investigation of evidence,it does not mention the conditions of whether the judicial organ agrees or not,which is completely left to the discretion of the judicial organ. Although judicial interpretation regards the necessity of investigation as the condition of consent,it is better than nothing because of its ambiguity. In judicial practice,the judicial organs mostly reject the application of the defense for investigating evidence on the ground that"the contrary has been proved."This kind of judgment standard,which may advance the evaluation of evidence to the stage of evidence investigation,not only violates the regular pattern of procedural epistemology,but also makes the defense unable to effectively participate in the litigation,which is likely to lead to wrongful judgments. In order to prevent judicial personnel from arbitrarily exercising their discretion,it is necessary to clearly define the specific reasons and judgment criteria for the judicial organ to refuse the defense's application for investigation of evidence on the basis of respecting the law of justice.
  • dc.description.sponsorshipPCode
  • 19XFX006
  • dc.description.sponsorship
  • 国家社会科学基金项目（19XFX006）
  • dc.description.sponsorshipsource
  • 国家社会科学基金
  • dc.identifier.CN
  • 34-1041/C
  • dc.identifier.issn
  • 1001-2435
  • dc.identifier.if
  • 0.294
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D925.2
回到顶部