浅谈技术侦查证据的审查问题

技术侦查指利用专门科学知识、技术和方法的各种侦查手段的总称.2012年新修订的刑事诉讼法首次将技术侦查纳入到基本法律的立法规制中,技术侦查材料被赋予了证据的合法地位.公诉机关应从证据的合法性、完整性、关联性角度针对技术侦查证据的特殊性加强证据审查,积极探索技术侦查证据的审查规则,对违法取得的技术侦查证据应当严格排除,以保障辨方的合法权益.     

论技术侦查所得证据材料的审查认定

新刑事诉讼法首次对技术侦查措施作出规定。所谓技术侦查措施是指侦查机关为了侦破特定犯罪行为,经过严格审批后采取的一种特定技术手段,主要包括电子侦听、电话监听、秘密录像录音、计算机网络信息监控、派遣秘密侦查员等侦查行为。技术侦查所得证据材料不仅具有一般证据所必须的客观性、关联性和合法性三个基本特征,还具有一定特殊性。一、技术侦查所得证据材料的特点一是高科技性。技术侦查措施与传统侦查手段的     

检察环节证据合法性审查实证研究

修订后的《刑事诉讼法》规定了检察机关的非法证据排除义务,并对检察环节开展证据合法性审查的具体程序和相应职责予以了明确规定。从司法实践来看,侦查活动的密闭性、审查模式的单一性、立法的不完善以及在审查过程中自由裁量缺乏必要的规制等问题制约了证据合法性审查的实效。为此,有必要从审查程序、配套制度以及认证规则等方面予以完善。     

浅议检察机关对技术侦查措施的监督

新刑诉法对技术侦查措施做出了相关规定,确立了其法律地位。技术侦查有其内涵和外延。对技术侦查获取的证据材料应合法使用。对技术侦查措施应当进行监督从而保证通过技术侦查获取的证据的正当性。     

法律规制下的技术侦查措施研究

2013年1月1日正式实施的《刑事诉讼法》修正案二首次对“技术侦查措施”作出增补规定.通过新的刑事诉讼法对技术侦查措施的规制研究,分析归纳技术侦查措施的界定,应当包括权力主体对技术侦查措施的界定和部分秘密侦查措施;对技术侦查措施使用的权力主体、适用范围、证据的合法性等问题进行研究,使技术侦查措施在法律规制下不断完善,在侦查中发挥其积极作用.     

行政机关收集的证据在刑事诉讼中的运用

《刑事诉讼法》规定行政机关收集的证据材料可以在刑事诉讼中作为证据使用,其所指的是实物证据而非言词证据,应包括勘验笔录和现场笔录。这些证据材料欲成为定案证据,需经过关联性、客观性和可采性的审查,尤其是证据的鉴真审查。判断行政机关收集证据程序的合法性,应与侦查机关收集证据程序适用不同标准,审慎适用排除规则,对由此带来的侦查机关通过行政机关"借壳"取证的可能性也应有充分的警惕。     

初查若干法律问题研究

初查是在立案之前对案件线索进行初步的筛选和过滤，以判断是否达到立案条件，并为正式侦查作准备的调查活动，它已成为刑事办案中不可或缺的前置程序。初查属于任意侦查的范畴，因此，“法无规定得行使，法有规定更得行使”；立案仅是强制侦查的启动要件，并非任意侦查的启动要件，因此初查可以先于立案而进行。在初查中，可以采取询问、同意搜查、同意扣押和调取证据材料等各种任意侦查措施，但不得采用可能强制性干预当事人重要权益的侦查手段，也不得在初查中采用行政调查手段。基于初查程序的合法性，初查中所获的证据，不论是实物证据，还是言词证据，均自始即具有证据能力，无须经过转化。     

老阎谈公证证据（之八）公证证据能力

一、公证证据能力的概念 证据能力．是指证据材料在法律上允许其作为证据的资格。证据能力也可称为证据资格或证据的合法性。在我国．称之为证据的合法性。我国立法对证据能力规定了两种限制方式。第一种是积极限制方法，即法律具体规定了何种机关和人员、根据何种程序和方式。收集、提供的何种证据来源与证据材料可以作为证据。     

检察机关非法证据和瑕疵证据处理机制研究——以新《刑事诉讼法》为视角

新《刑事诉讼法》以及《两个证据规定》①都明确了检察机关证明证据合法性的证明责任，证明不力则相关证据将被依法排除。然而，司法实践中存在大量不规范的取证行为，侦查机关对于证明证据合法性证据的收集工作也并不重视。如此一来，在新的证明要求下，检察机关公诉败诉风险大大增加。     

新刑诉之技术侦查——以证据运用为视角

我国新刑诉法新增技术侦查措施一节,本节对技术侦查措施的适用情况、程序的审批机关以及所获得材料的证据效力等做出了规定。为什么新刑诉法要增加技术侦查措施这一节?在新刑诉颁布前实务中对这种情况是怎样处理的,本文将结合国外规定对上述问题以及在新刑诉下,通过技术侦查获得的哪些材料可以作为证据使用而哪些不行、又由谁来决定哪些材料可以用作证据等一系列具体问题进行探讨。     

The use of the obti test for determining the presence and type of blood in stains

A method for simultaneous detection and identification of the blood in stains on material evidence has been tried. Previously these two procedures were carried out in succession and took 2 days, while the new method takes 2-10 min. The method is highly sensitive and specific. Positive results were obtained only with human blood. The method is recommended for practice, specifically, for investigation of complex blood traces (washed and old) on material evidence.     

The Creation of Normative Facts

In Kelsen's formalist and reductionisttheory of law, the concepts of `authority' and`competence' may be explained exclusively in termsof those norms on which the validity of other legalnorms or of legal acts is dependent. Kelsen describesthe nature of these norms in different ways; at leastthree different conceptions can be distinguished. Arational reconstruction of the most plausible of theseconceptions will understand sentences expressing such`norms of competence' either to state truthconditions for normative sentences of a lower level orto state criteria for an act to be a legal act. Inboth functions, norms of competence regulate thecreation of normative facts.     

Assessing civil competence in the elderly.

This study was designed to establish reliability of the Community Competence Scale-Revised (CCS-R) and provide evidence for its validity in making discriminations relevant to civil competence in the elderly. The CCS-R is an individually administered structured interview of 17 subscales. Criterion groups were formed by drawing a sample of research participants from a retirement complex with various levels of care and with nurses having extensive knowledge of the residents' level of functioning. The study demonstrated high reliability and found converging evidence for the effectiveness of the CCS-R in making discrimination about competence in the elderly. The study had added to the growing evidence that it is possible to standardize the assessment of civil competence, thereby making the adjudication process a more accurate one.     

Monitoring doctors' clinical competence: a Queensland focus

The medical profession is held accountable in numerous ways, many of which are concerned with clinical competence. However, while Australia's State medical boards are statutorily charged with protecting the public from incompetent practice, they have never instituted programs aimed at maintaining the standards of all practitioners. The article describes recent legislative changes and developments in undergraduate medical education, which aim to increase physicians' accountability in relation to competence, and compares developments in Queensland and other States with those in the United Kingdom, Quebec and New Zealand. The investigation of clinical incompetence as currently undertaken by the Medical Board of Queensland should, and will, be adopted in other States. However, responding to incompetence is necessarily piecemeal, and the article further argues that the States should develop inclusive revalidation strategies. Both the community and leading voices within the profession are demanding greater commitment to a self-regulation culture that is more transparent and has sharper teeth.     

Digital evidence: Unaddressed threats to fairness and the presumption of innocence

Contemporary criminal investigation assisted by computing technology imposes challenges to the right to a fair trial and the scientific validity of digital evidence. This paper identifies three categories of unaddressed threats to fairness and the presumption of innocence during investigations – (i) the inappropriate and inconsistent use of technology; (ii) old procedural guarantees, which are not adapted to contemporary digital evidence processes and services; (iii) and the lack of reliability testing in digital forensics practice. Further, the solutions that have been suggested to overcome these issues are critically reviewed to identify their shortcomings. Ultimately, the paper argues for the need of legislative intervention and enforcement of standards and validation procedures for digital evidence in order to protect innocent suspects and all parties in the criminal proceedings from the negative consequences of technology-assisted investigations.     

论证据的种类

我国法律将证据分为八种是缺乏根据的。八种“证据”中只有物证、书证是两种独立的证据。证人证言、被害人陈述、犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述和辩解只是人证的不同类型 ,而与物证、书证并列的只能是人证。勘验、检查笔录和鉴定结论都不是证据本身 ,它们只是反映了物证的物证资料。视听资料不是单一事物 ,其四种成分中只有一种成分是证据 ,且属于书证。根据以上分析 ,本文认为 ,证据只有三种 :物证、书证、人证。证据都是由事实构成的 ,事实构成证据的情况只有三种 :一是客观存在 ;二是被“书”记载 ;三是被人感知。三种情况下的事实只能构成三种证据。司法人员获得证据的途径也只有三种 :一是找证物 ;二是找“证书” ;三是找“证人”。     

行、刑衔接中的证据问题研究——以《刑事诉讼法》第52条第2款为分析文本

从行政违法和犯罪行为之间"质"与"量"的二元关系出发,从证据的本质属性和取证主体的规范分析入手,行政机关在行政执法和查办案件中收集的部分证据材料,在刑事诉讼中可直接作为证据使用,无需转化。然而在行、刑衔接中证据材料可直接移送的范围,原则上应仅限于物证、书证、视听资料和电子数据这几类实物证据。未来的行、刑衔接中为了使证据的移送有序、顺畅,应尽快实现行、刑衔接中证据种类的统一,同时对此类证据的审查判断和适用排除规则的标准也应兼采行政诉讼和刑事诉讼取证、排除规则的双重标准。     

违法诱惑侦查所获证据之证据能力研究

对于诱惑侦查而言，“机会引诱”因本为合法之侦查取证行为，故其所获证据当为合法，可作为法庭审判定案之根据；但“犯意引诱”作为一种违法侦查行为，一旦成立，则应当排除其所获之全案证据。违法诱惑侦查，系国家制造犯罪，已经逾越侦查犯罪之必要程度、违反宪法对于基本人权之保障、对于公共利益之维护并无意义，因其在性质上已经属于极端严重的违法侦查行为，因此，对于违法诱惑侦查所获之证据，无论言词证据，还是实物证据，均应一律排除。如果被告在审判中提出其遭受侦查机关违法诱惑侦查的抗辩时，类似于被告提出其遭受警方刑讯逼供的抗辩，应由检察官承担证明该阻却犯罪成立事由不存在的举证责任，且由于该事实为直接影响被告罪责之实体事实，因此，举证时应当适用严格证明法则，并应证明至排除合理怀疑（高度盖然性）的程度。     

完善辨认证据效力之构想——从佘祥林杀妻冤案说开

佘祥林杀妻错案的酿成,源于对尸体之辨认错误。辨认的目的是为取证和查明案情。我国刑事诉讼法虽未规定辨认为侦 查措施,但辨认与某些法定侦查措施如言辞证据并无根本差异。辨认结果的证据效力与辨认主体、辨认客体、辨认过程密切相关 辨 认结论作为证据的使用条件必须要严格按照辨认的规则进行的,方法没有错误;辨认结果是科学可靠的;辨认的结果得到其他侦查 材料的印证。在立法上提出关于辨认的相关建议。     

On the Role of Normative Hierarchies in Constitutional Reasoning: A Survey of Some Paradigmatic Cases

This article examines the role of normative hierarchies in constitutional argumentation. A threefold distinction between formal, material, and axiological hierarchy is employed. The correlative concepts of formal validity, material validity, and applicability are also briefly described. Within this framework, four cases are analysed: Decisions 1146/1988 and 10/2010 of the Italian Constitutional Court, and Kadi I and Opinion 2/2013 of the Court of Justice of the European Union. As a result, it is argued that axiological hierarchies are frequently used to reshape certain fundamental legal arrangements, namely, the hierarchy of sources (Decision 1146/1988 and Kadi), competence clauses (Decision 10/2010), and interpretive methodologies (Opinion 2/13).