The examination and analysis of evidence is essentially a mental activity based on knowledge in areas such as perception, logic and, at the same time, the legal literacy, practical experience and common sense of the judiciary, among others, which require certain methods and guidelines。
Proof of law. The testimonial law, as a method, is based on the doctrine of continuity and conformity. The contemplation of corroboration is reflected in the fact that “the evidence strengthens each other's probative role vis-à-vis each other” and that the evidence, taken together, obtains the certainty of the conclusion as a whole, emphasizing the evaluation as a whole rather than an individual evaluation; the contemplation of probative evidence refers to confirmation of the authenticity of this evidence on the basis of the conformity of the evidence with that of the evidence, often using physical evidence as a reference to test the probative evidence and to determine the probative strength of the probative evidence to the extent that it is consistent with physical evidence. At the same time, the testimonial law is based on the notion of probabilisticity, which is clearly higher than the facts reflected in a single evidence, based on the probability that the facts determined by multiple mutually corroborating evidence correspond to objective truth. The credibility of the same accused is clearly higher than that of one witness when all witnesses testify。
The examination and analysis of evidence must adhere to scientific and cognitive probative law. There is a mistake in judicial practice: the mere use of physical evidence to print testimony evidence, the perception that evidence of words is a one-way test, the subconscious does not pass through what is described in the evidence of words as a hypothesis, but rather has to prove what is believed to be the objective of proof, and once physical evidence does not print testimony, it is not clear what to do with it or even to create false proof to do the proof. It is precisely because proof of words must be the object of proof that leads to superstition of confessions. The physical evidence and the verbal evidence should interact in two directions and test each other for truth, both by using physical evidence to test the authenticity of the statement evidence and by focusing on excavating the details of the physical evidence contained in the statement evidence and on the interpretation and interpretation of the physical evidence. Physical and verbal evidence is not a simple, general and general form of proof, but a multi-point evidence of detail。
Logical rules. The examination and analysis of evidence is the determination of the authenticity of the evidence by means of a consistent or contradictory relationship between the evidence, the logical requirement for the truth of the evidence, and the logical method is an effective way of judging the truth of the evidence. In judicial practice, the logical norms frequently used to examine and analyse evidence are mainly uniform, contradictory, middle-class, etc。
The same requires that, in a process of thinking, each thought should remain unified with itself. The content of the same concept, judgement or proposition is unchanged. Paradoxically, in the same process of thinking, a negative judgement (incompetence or opposition) cannot all be true; one of them must be false. Paradoxical laws require that the content of a concept, judgement or proposition should not be one and the other, and that it cannot be contradictory or inconsistent. In some cases, the accused and the victim are often called in doubt on the grounds that the evidence is one-to-one and cannot be judged. This view is also contrary to ambivalence. The amount of evidence may be one-to-one, but it is clear that the probative weight of both evidence is not equal and that both cannot be true, one of which must be false or both. Where there is one-on-one evidence, it is generally appropriate to rely on the weight of the proof to rely on one of the parties to confirm one as true and one as false. It is only when neither claim is admissible that the facts are unclear, insufficient evidence and need to be addressed in the light of doubt。
Middle-classism means that in the same thinking, two negative judgements (comparable or dissenting) cannot all be false, one of which must be true. Middle-classism requires that what is and what is not should be certain, not ambiguous, in a given time and space. The evidence of common breaches of the rules is speculative testimony, identification of possibilities, inaccurate identification, non-exclusive expert opinion, etc. In a case where the defendant suffers from epilepsy, the determination of criminal responsibility is not admissible solely because it has a similar prior history of violent crime, i. E. “from strict conviction to full liability”. For example, the surveillance video of the five accused is not accurately shown and is accepted in a manner that is broadly consistent with the physical appearance of the accused, in fact violating the middle order. Such evidence cannot be used either to establish the facts or to support other evidence。
The laws of nature. Natural law is the intrinsic, essential and stable link of material movement. The conduct of a person must be in conformity with the laws of nature and criminal acts are no exception. If the facts reflected in the evidence were contrary to the laws of nature, the evidence was necessarily problematic and could not be ignored on the basis of exceptional circumstances. If the witness claims to have clearly seen the face of the accused in the light of the moon, but according to the time of the established case, when the moon had not risen, it was impossible for the witness to use the light of the moon to identify the faces of the person who appeared at the scene, the witness's testimony should be excluded if it was contrary to the law of the sun and moon. Moreover, according to the locad material exchange doctrine, the criminal process is in fact a process of material exchange, a symbiotic form of criminal conduct and a pattern of non-transfer by human will. In one case, where it was found that the accused had killed bodies in the bushes full of orchids, due to the strong adhesiveness of the flowered orchids and the absence of pollen on the clothes and shoes on which the accused had been wearing during the crime, the authenticity of the relevant evidence against the accused had to be verified, excluding the cleaning of clothes, because the direction of the evidence in the case was inconsistent with natural law。
Natural law is a rule of time and space and has limitations, and its application must be sensitive to its conditions. Natural law is the law of nature and materiality is first and foremost and does not exist in the presence of human beings, but the application of natural law requires recourse to human thinking, and therefore there is a misapplication of natural law. In the case of the same finding theory, for example, the same determination is based objectively on individual differences between things, it is the rationale for evidence of trace, document, dna test type, and in practice there are frequent errors in the examination of evidence resulting from the erroneous application of the same determination theory. The same determination is based on the specificity, stability and responsiveness of the combination of characteristics. The key is the selection of characteristics, which gives rise to erroneous findings if general features are confused as detailed features, or the number of characteristics is insufficient, or if the identification is equivalent to the same determination。
The law of experience. The rule of experience, like the rule of logic, is the rule of examination of evidence and the determination of facts, which is regulated by legal provisions. However, the content of the rule of experience is not sufficiently clear and depends more on human cognitive abilities and levels than on the rule of logic. According to some scholars, the law of experience is divided into five categories: the law of nature or the law of nature, the law of logic (judgment), custom, the law of experience in everyday life, and the law of specialized scientific fields. In the view of the author, the law of experience is a matter of intellectual accumulation and social common sense in terms of the relationship between encapsulation and necessity, of imprudentness and of impracticability to include laws of nature or laws of nature, as well as laws in specialized scientific fields, and of parallelity of experience and logic in the formulation of legal and judicial interpretations, so that the law of experience in criminal proceedings is not appropriate to include rules of logic. Thus, the law of experience refers exclusively to the law of everyday life and customary law。
In the examination and analysis of evidence, empirical law has the function of evaluating evidence and establishing facts. In the first place, empirical law can help to deduce common sense from appearances, discover reasonable suspicion, challenge evidence in the case and establish facts. If the normal writing and typing speed of a person is a fixed value, and if the number of words in the interrogation notes is clearly beyond the reach of human capacity, the question arises as to whether there is a copy pasting or pre-production. Secondly, empirical law can fill the gap between evidence and assist in the presumption of fact. In the case of murder bail, where the evidence proves that the victim had a large amount of insurance in his or her life for the benefit of the accused, the defendant claimed the benefit immediately after the victim's death, and based on his or her life experience, “the murderer was often the largest beneficiary of the murder”, the circumstantial evidence of the facts before and after the commission of the crime could be linked, deduced from the evidence that the accused was the murderer. Finally, the rule of experience is also an effective means of refuting the defence of the accused. Life experience has shown us that the glass in the home is often rinsed and generally does not leave fingerprints of persons who have not been in contact with the glass for a long time, a defence that can be refuted by empirical law, if the alleged theft is justified by the fact that the fingerprints left on the windows of the victim's room were the same as the ones they had helped to move the glass。
Of course, the rule of experientiality is a corollary of reasoning that can be both perjury and the risk of misuse. It is easy for those who apply the rules of experience to misperceive what they see and even prejudice as a general rule of experience. The experience documented in the books is often limited and depends mainly on life experience, awareness and the ability to judge the facts of the case and the knowledge of the evidence. It is therefore important to apply the rules of experience in three ways: in daily life, in a way that is generally accepted by society and can be felt in person. (by yang bin, people's procuratorate, zhejiang province)
"the daily prosecutor"
