论不在犯罪现场的证明

我国2012年《刑事诉讼法》所确立的不在犯罪现场的辩方开示义务如“邯郸学步”，这是把一种可能无需法律规制的常识判断转化为一种程序规则“。不在犯罪现场的证据”具有无罪的指向性、整体的意见性以及形态的中介性，这一概念发展了证据形式和证据种类的理论。然而这个规则既无根基也无后果，一方面，在我国官方垄断取证的背景之下“，不在犯罪现场”的辩护不可能对控方造成突然袭击，还可能被认为是狡辩而不受待见，而辩护方的所有取证活动必须汇集到控方的单向证明活动之中才被看做是证据；另一方面，倘若被告人并未履行“不在犯罪现场”的证据开示义务，尽管出于辩护本能，根本没有这种可能，对被告人而言，也没有相应的惩罚后果。须知在英美法系国家为寻找真相而要求庭前开示不在犯罪现场的证据也可能事与愿违。因此，在我国“不在犯罪现场”的证明只关注了为了削弱程序抗辩的证据交换问题，而未考虑辩护方的证据收集能力的前提问题以及控诉方怠于为反对抗辩而积极取证的责任问题。在此背景下，基于无罪推定原则，不在犯罪现场的抗辩是辩护方证否的权利，及早提出可以防止追诉机关的错误积重难返；又基于举证责任分配原则，不在犯罪现场的证明反而是控诉方要承担的一个证实的义务，要求其积极核实和审查。

Discussions on proof of alibi

It was just like a swan-imitating crow that set a defense obligation to the disclosure of alibi evidence established in the criminal procedure law in China in 2012. This renders a judgment possibly without legal regulation of common sense into a kind of procedural rules. ＂Alibi evidence＂ is directed to innocent, a kind of opinions as the whole, as well as the intermediary in the form. The concept develops the variety of forms and generic of evidence in theory. The rules have neither roots nor consequences. However, on one hand, under the background of official monopoly to evidence-collection in China, ＂alibi＂ defenses may not cause an ambush attack to the prosecution, also may be considered to be chicanery and unbelievable, and all forensic defense activities could be named as evidence when they were in conlfux into a one-way proving activities by the prosecution; on the other hand, if the defendant did not fulifll his or her obligation to discovery of alibi evidence, although that cannot happen by defense instinct, there is no corresponding procedural punishment for the defendant. It is knowable that disclosure of the alibi evidence before the court in common law countries to seek the truth also could cause backifre. Therefore, proof of alibi in China only focused on the issue of evidence exchange to weaken the contest, and did not consider the premise of the defense ability of evidence collection and the responsibility of the prosecution idle at collecting evidence for objection to alibi. In this context, based on the principle of presumption of innocence, alibi defense is the right of the defendants and its early raising-up can prevent the endless errors made by the prosecution, and based on the principle of distribution of evidential burden, prosecutor bears an obligation to conifrm alibi proof, with a requirement of positive veriifcation and review.