In the pilot project of the substantive reform of court trials,“unexpected” judgments appeared constantly because the traditional documentary investigation mode has been replaced by an investigation mode under the p...In the pilot project of the substantive reform of court trials,“unexpected” judgments appeared constantly because the traditional documentary investigation mode has been replaced by an investigation mode under the principle of directness and verbalism. This change in the logic of factual judgments has caused a change in the methods of evidence examination. In traditional evidence examination, evidence obtained from investigations is supposed to be genuine and reliable. In the substantive reform of court trials, it is presumed that evidence obtained from investigations cannot be fully trusted and it is easier to ascertain the facts of the case by investigating using the principles of directness, verbalism and individualized judging methods for evidence examinations. In practice, there are three main factors affecting the genuineness of evidence: the cognitive rules of testifiers, the motivation of the subjects who provide evidence, and the methods used by investigators to obtain evidence. Based on any one of these three factors, it cannot be concluded that evidence obtained from investigations is superior to evidence presented in court. The substantive court investigation is more advantageous to establishing the facts of a case than the traditional court investigation. The essential characteristics of the substantive reform of court trials are pursuing reality in essence instead of in form, and using the files of the court trials instead of the files of the investigation to avoid the evidence obtained through investigations from playing a decisive role in the adjudication thus making criminal procedures trial-centered rather than investigation-centered.展开更多
文摘In the pilot project of the substantive reform of court trials,“unexpected” judgments appeared constantly because the traditional documentary investigation mode has been replaced by an investigation mode under the principle of directness and verbalism. This change in the logic of factual judgments has caused a change in the methods of evidence examination. In traditional evidence examination, evidence obtained from investigations is supposed to be genuine and reliable. In the substantive reform of court trials, it is presumed that evidence obtained from investigations cannot be fully trusted and it is easier to ascertain the facts of the case by investigating using the principles of directness, verbalism and individualized judging methods for evidence examinations. In practice, there are three main factors affecting the genuineness of evidence: the cognitive rules of testifiers, the motivation of the subjects who provide evidence, and the methods used by investigators to obtain evidence. Based on any one of these three factors, it cannot be concluded that evidence obtained from investigations is superior to evidence presented in court. The substantive court investigation is more advantageous to establishing the facts of a case than the traditional court investigation. The essential characteristics of the substantive reform of court trials are pursuing reality in essence instead of in form, and using the files of the court trials instead of the files of the investigation to avoid the evidence obtained through investigations from playing a decisive role in the adjudication thus making criminal procedures trial-centered rather than investigation-centered.
