上传用户：caaozlhpop资料价格：5财富值&&『』文档下载 ：『』&&『』学位专业：&关 键 词 ：&&&&&权力声明：若本站收录的文献无意侵犯了您的著作版权，请点击。摘要:（摘要内容经过系统自动伪原创处理以避免复制，下载原文正常，内容请直接查看目录。）不法证据消除规矩发生于1914年美国联邦最高法院审理的威克斯诉美国一案，随同着两年夜法系分歧国度间的交换与融会，不法证据消除规矩已被世界上绝年夜多半国度的刑事立法和刑事司法所采取，我国也已将不法证据消除规矩正式写入刑诉法。在我国的宪政体系体例下，审查机关作为国度的司法监视机关，不只行使职务犯法侦察权和公诉权，还行使着对刑事诉讼全程停止司法监视的权柄。我国审查机关审查权权能的多元化特色和对刑事诉讼运动全程介入的奇特属性，决议了审查机关在刑事诉讼中消除不法证据的主要性、庞杂性和特别性。本文以审查机关为视角，采取比拟剖析法、价值剖析法及思辩与实证相联合的办法，对审查机关在刑事诉讼中消除不法证据的相干内容予以体系梳理和具体阐释。全文重要内容除导论外，共分六章。在第一章中，笔者阐述了审查机关在刑事诉讼中消除不法证据的主要感化、实际基本和价值取向。证据裁判准绳是古代法治国度证据轨制的基石，也被称作证据裁判主义。证据的正当性是证据裁判准绳的主要内在之一，不具有正当性特质的证据常常缺少真实性，证据必需经由示证、质证并被有用证实后，方能作为定案依据；法式性制裁实际在东方法学界遭到了较早的看重，法式性制裁针对的是法式性守法行动，法式性守法行动能够存在于刑事诉讼的任何阶段，不法证据消除规矩是法式性制裁的主要手腕之一；依据我国宪法、刑诉法的划定，国民审查院在刑事诉讼进程中享有普遍权柄，全程介入刑事诉讼，而依据我国刑诉法的划定，不法证据消除规矩也是贯串刑事诉讼运动一直的，这决议了审查机关在刑事诉讼消除不法证据方面可以或许施展主要的感化，然则也面对着诸多挑衅和抵触，包含不法证据的审查和被审查脚色的抵触，证据消除与公诉权完成的抵触及消除不法证据的司法监视与被监视的脚色抵触；审查机关消除不法证据的实际基本应包含三项内容，即法式公理实际、客不雅公平责任实际和司法监视实际；审查机关在刑事诉讼中消除不法证据不只表现了人权保证与限制公权利的价值，更是保护司法庄严和司法公信力的客不雅须要。在第二章中，笔者对英美法系和年夜陆法系重要国度的不法证据消除规矩停止了考核，并阐述了列国审查官在消除不法证据进程中的感化。就刑事诉讼中的不法证据消除规矩而言，英美法系的消除规矩比年夜陆法系的消除规矩更具有丰硕内容，特别是美国，其不法证据消除规矩最为蓬勃。关于不法言辞证据，因为其对国民宪法权力的严重伤害性，不管是英美法系照样年夜陆法系，列国普通都划定了强迫消除；关于不法什物证据，美国请求准绳消除，而英国、德国和日本则将不法什物证据的消除委诸于法官自在裁量。美国请求消除不法证据衍生出的“毒树之果”，而英国、德国和日本普通不予消除。列国对不法证据消除规矩详细规模的设定，反应了处分犯法与掩护人权之间自然的重要关系。就审查官在消除不法证据中的感化而言，英国和美国的审查部分与警员部分绝对自力，互不附属，审查官仅享有非常无限的侦察引诱权，根本不会在刑事案件侦察阶段涉足不法证据的消除。而德国和日本的审查部分对警员部分的侦察运动享有引导权和批示权，更能有用地阻拦警员的不法侦察行动，避免不法取证行动的感化也更加凸起。在刑事案件审查告状阶段，列国审查官普通都邑对质据正当性停止审查断定，以避免控方证据被消除的晦气效果。在对控方证据的正当性证实方面，固然这一证实运动在刑事诉讼的详细产生阶段有所差别，但列国审查官均担当着对控方提出证据的正当性的证实义务。在第三章中，阐述了审查机关在自侦案件中若何完成对不法证据的防控和在审查拘捕、审查告状环节对不法证据消除。在对不法证据规模的熟悉方面，除要周全熟悉不法证据的微观组成要素外，审查机关还应留意辨别不法证据与瑕疵证据的界线、不法证据与询问战略的界线。明白不法言辞证据中何谓“刑讯逼供等”不法办法，何谓不法什物证据中的“严重影响司法公平”等成绩。在不法证据的消除方法方面，我国刑诉法和相干划定设立了相对消除、裁量消除和没法补正消除三种消除方法；审查机关应依据不法证据的分歧情势对三种消除方法差别实用，并应留意关于反复自白、共犯不法证据及分歧的“毒树之果”选用分歧的消除方法加以消除。在法式性内容方面，审查机关在审前阶段消除不法证据时应实行权力告诉责任，审前不法证据消除法式的启动可分为依权柄启动和依请求启动两种方法，侦察机关或侦察部分负有对质据正当性的证实义务，证实尺度应与庭审阶段审查机关对质据正当性的证实尺度分歧。第四章内容，以审讯阶段审查机关对质据正当性的证实为重点并恰当论及审讯阶段消除不法证据的法式性内容。审讯阶段消除不法证据的法式启动仍然包含权柄启动和请求启动两种，只是此时可依权柄启动不法证据查询拜访法式的主体是法官而非审查官。消除不法证据的动议应尽可能在庭前会议中提出，但其实不排挤审讯阶段提出消除不法证据的动议。证据正当性的证实义务准绳上由审查机关承当，但针对分歧的不法证据情势证实义务的承当也会有所分歧。审查机关应选择适合的证实方法对质据正当性停止证实，而且证实运动必需到达恰当的证实尺度能力完成。笔者以为，关于相对消除的不法言词证据应采取“消除公道疑惑”的证实尺度，关于裁量消除的不法什物证据可采取“优势证实”的尺度。在第五章中，笔者重要阐述了审查机关对刑事诉讼进程中消除不法证据停止司法监视的内容。固然新刑诉法并未对此作出专门划定，但审查机关对刑事诉讼中消除不法证据停止司法监视应是对不法证据消除规矩的一种应然懂得，也是消除不法证据的最初一道樊篱。审查机关对刑事诉讼中消除不法证据的司法监视包含对公诉案件的监视和对自诉案件的监视。对公诉案件的司法监视，又分为对侦察运动中不法取证行动的监视和对审前阶段消除不法证据的监视，对审讯阶段的司法监视重要是对国民法院能否严厉依法实用不法证据消除规矩、保证原告人权力的监视。笔者以为，就刑事诉讼进程中消除不法证据而言，审查机关应以刑事公诉案件的司法监视为主并增强和完美对刑事自诉案件的司法监视。在第六章中，笔者重要阐述了以下内容：不法证据消除规矩的庞杂性和我国审查权权能的多元化特色，决议了审查机关在消除不法证据进程中面对着多种抵触地步，包含消除不法证据的审查与被审查脚色的抵触、证据消除与公诉权完成的抵触和消除不法证据的司法监视与被监视的脚色抵触。关于上述抵触须要沿多种退路停止化解，包含亲密检警关系、增强律师感化、公道处置审查机关外部分工及对审查权停止公道制约等方面。Abstract:The illegal evidence elimination rule occurred in 1914 the United States Supreme Court in weeks v. United States, along with the exchange and fusion of the eve of the two legal systems of different countries, the illegal evidence elimination rule has been the world majority most country criminal legislation and criminal justice taken, our country also has the illegal evidence elimination rule formally written into criminal procedure law. Under the constitutional system of our country, the examination organ, as the judicial supervision organ of the state, not only exercise the right of criminal investigation and public prosecution, but also exercise the right of the criminal procedure to stop the judicial supervision. The diversification characteristics of the right and the power of the examination organ of our country and the peculiar attribute of the whole process of the criminal procedure involved in the criminal procedure, the main character, the complexity and the particularity of the criminal prosecution in the criminal procedure are decided. The authority to review as the angle of view, take comparative analysis, value analysis and speculative and empirical combination way, to review organs in criminal litigation in eliminating illegal evidence relevant content to be carding system and specific interpretation. In addition to the introduction, the main content of the text is divided into six chapters. In the first chapter, the author elaborates the main effect, the actual basic and the value orientation of the examination organ in the criminal procedure. The principle of evidence judgment is the cornerstone of the evidence system of the rule of law in ancient China. The legitimacy of evidence is one of the main internal evidence referee principle, has no legitimacy traits often lack the authenticity of evidence, evidence must be shown evidence, and is useful for confirmation, can be used as the basis of the actual sanctions in the E French jurisprudence was much earlier, French sanctions against the French law of action at any stage of French law action can exist in the criminal procedure, illegal evidence elimination rule is one of the main means of French sanctions acc China's constitution, criminal procedure law, the national review court in criminal proceedings enjoy universal authority in the process, the entire process involved in criminal proceedings, and according to regulation China's criminal procedure law, the criminal procedure rules is eliminated through the movement has been illegal evidence, the resolution of the review bodies to eliminate illegal evidence in Criminal Litigation Can perhaps display the main role, however is also faced with many challenges and conflict, contains evidence of illegal examination and review role conflict. Evidence for elimination of complete and the right of public prosecution conflict and elimination of illegal evidence of judicial supervision and survei review agency fire, in addition to the practice of illegal evidence should contain three parts, namely procedural justice practice, customer indecent fair liability practice and judicial authority for review in the criminal procedure eliminate illegal evidence not only reflect the human rights guarantee and limit the value of public right, it is need to protect judicial solemn and public credibility of the judiciary indecent. In the second chapter, the author of the common law and the civil law system of the important countries of the illegal evidence elimination rules to stop the examination, and elaborated the countries in the process of eliminating illegal evidence. On the criminal illegal evidence eliminating rules, the elimination of the Anglo American law system rules than the eve of the mainland legal system's elimination rule is more rich content, especially in the United States, the illegal evidence elimination rule is the most vigorous. About illegal words evidence, because of its serious harm to national constitutional power, regardless of the Anglo American law system still in the continental law system, nations designate evidence of illegal sundries, request the United States the principle of eliminating, and Britain, Germany and Japan will illegal physical evidence to eliminate the Commission to judge free discretion. U.S. request to eliminate the illegal evidence derived from the fruit of the poisonous tree, while the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan will not be eliminated. The countries of the illegal evidence to eliminate the rules of the details of the setting, the response of the law and the protection of human rights between the nature of an important relationship. In terms of the role of the censor in eliminating illegal evidence, the United Kingdom and the United States and the United States is part of the review of absolute independence, mutual non affiliated, the examiner only enjoy a very unlimited reconnaissance to lure the right to not be involved in criminal cases in the criminal investigation phase of the elimination of illegal evidence. The review of the German and Japanese parts of the police part of the reconnaissance exercise to enjoy the right to guide and instruction, more can effectively block the illegal investigation of police operations, to avoid the impact of illegal evidence action is also more prominent. In the review of criminal case to sue level, nations Prosecutor General Yap confrontation according to the legitimacy of the review concluded that to avoid prosecution evidence is eliminated and the adverse effect. On the legitimacy of the prosecution evidence confirmed, although this proved movement in criminal litigation with stage vary, but nations censor all play a confirmation of the legitimacy of the prosecution evidence obligation. In the third chapter, elaborated the examination organ in the self investigation cases, how to complete the prevention and control of illegal evidence and arrested in the review, examine sue link on elimination of illegal evidence. In terms of the scale of illegal evidence, in addition to fully familiar with the micro elements of illegal evidence, the review organ should also pay attention to identify the boundaries between the illegal evidence and evidence of flaws, illegal evidence and the boundaries of the inquiry strategy. Understand the meaning of &illegal verbal evidence of illegal inquisition by torture&, what is illegal things permit目录:中文摘要4-7Abstract7-11导论15-27&&&&一、 选题依据和意义15-17&&&&二、 相关法律规定和既往研究状况分析17-22&&&&三、 采用的研究方法22-23&&&&四、 论文脉络和主要内容23-27第一章 检察机关排除非法证据概述27-51&&&&一、 检察机关在非法证据排除规则中的作用27-35&&&&&&&&（一） 两个前提：证据裁判原则与程序性制裁机制27-30&&&&&&&&（二） 检察机关在非法证据排除规则中的重要作用30-33&&&&&&&&（三） 检察机关排除非法证据面临的问题33-35&&&&二、 检察机关排除非法证据的理论基础35-44&&&&&&&&（一） 程序正义理论35-38&&&&&&&&（二） 法律监督理论38-41&&&&&&&&（三） 客观公正义务理论41-44&&&&三、 检察机关排除非法证据的价值考量44-51&&&&&&&&（一） 人权保障与限制公权力的结合44-47&&&&&&&&（二） 维护司法尊严和司法公信力的需要47-51第二章 非法证据排除规则与检察官作用的域外考察51-77&&&&一、 非法证据排除规则滥觞51-52&&&&二、 英美法系非法证据排除规则和检察官的作用52-65&&&&&&&&（一） 美国非法证据排除规则和检察官的作用53-59&&&&&&&&（二） 英国非法证据排除规则和检察官的作用59-65&&&&三、 大陆法系非法证据排除规则和检察官的作用65-74&&&&&&&&（一） 德国非法证据排除规则和检察官的作用65-70&&&&&&&&（二） 日本非法证据排除规则和检察官的作用70-74&&&&四、 小结74-77第三章 审前阶段检察机关对非法证据的防控与排除77-127&&&&一、 自侦案件中对非法证据的认知与防控77-102&&&&&&&&（一） 非法证据与瑕疵证据之界限79-85&&&&&&&&（二） 非法言辞证据之“非法”85-91&&&&&&&&（三） 非法实物证据之“非法”91-94&&&&&&&&（四） 其他非法证据之“非法”94-97&&&&&&&&（五） 自侦案件中防控非法证据之方法97-102&&&&二、 审前阶段对非法证据的识别与排除102-127&&&&&&&&（一） 排除非法证据的重点环节103-105&&&&&&&&（二） 排除非法证据的要素归纳105-114&&&&&&&&（三） 非法证据排除方式的运用114-122&&&&&&&&（四） 排除非法证据的程序内容122-127第四章 审判阶段检察机关对证据合法性的证明127-158&&&&一、 审判阶段排除非法证据的程序安排127-139&&&&&&&&（一） 排除非法证据的程序启动128-134&&&&&&&&（二） 排除非法证据的基本流程134-136&&&&&&&&（三） 排除非法证据的程序救济136-139&&&&二、 检察机关对证据合法性的证明139-158&&&&&&&&（一） 控辩双方的证明责任分配140-143&&&&&&&&（二） 检察机关的证明标准143-151&&&&&&&&（三） 检察机关的证明方式151-158第五章 检察机关对排除非法证据的法律监督158-176&&&&一、 法律监督权的程序性救济内涵158-164&&&&&&&&（一） 检察机关法律监督权的地位及内容158-162&&&&&&&&（二） 检察机关对排除非法证据的法律监督162-164&&&&二、 对公诉案件排除非法证据的法律监督164-169&&&&&&&&（一） 审前阶段排除非法证据的法律监督164-168&&&&&&&&（二） 审判阶段排除非法证据的法律监督168-169&&&&三、 对自诉案件排除非法证据的法律监督169-176&&&&&&&&（一） 对自诉案件进行法律监督的现状169-172&&&&&&&&（二） 对自诉案件法律监督的完善172-176第六章 检察机关排除非法证据的角色冲突与化解176-191&&&&一、 检察机关排除非法证据的角色冲突176-180&&&&二、 角色冲突的化解进路180-191结论191-195参考文献195-207攻读学位期间发表的学术论文207-209后记209分享到：相关文献|}