1. The concept of criminal evidence Article 50 of the "Criminal Procedure Law" stipulates that materials that can be used to prove the facts of a case are evidence. Including: (1) physical evidence; (2) documentary evidence; (3) witness testimony; (4) victim statement; (5) confession and defense of criminal suspects and defendants; (6) appraisal opinions; (7) inquest and inspection , identification, investigation experiments, etc. transcripts; (8) Audio-visual materials and electronic data. It can be seen that evidence in criminal proceedings in our country refers to materials that can prove the facts of the case in the form provided by law. The concept of criminal evidence can be understood from three aspects: first, criminal evidence itself is an objectively existing material; second, criminal evidence is the basis for proving the true situation of the case and a means of determining the facts of the case; third, criminal evidence Must comply with the eight forms of expression specified by law.

2. Basic attributes of criminal evidence Criminal evidence has the following three closely related basic attributes: Objectivity. The objectivity of evidence means that the evidence must be objective facts and not subject to human subjective will. Any subjective imagination, fiction, guess, hypothesis, conjecture, dreams, hearsay from unclear sources, etc. are not objectively existing materials. Neither can be used as evidence in criminal proceedings. Objectivity is the primary attribute and most essential feature of criminal evidence. The objectivity of evidence is determined by the objectivity of the criminal case itself. Any criminal behavior occurs at a certain time and space. As long as the behavior occurs, various traces and impressions will inevitably be left and evidence will be formed. This is an objective existence independent of human will. Although the evidence must be collected by public security and judicial personnel, parties and their defenders, and litigation agents, it contains subjective factors of the collection subject, such as interrogating criminal suspects and defendants, questioning witnesses and making transcripts, and physical evidence must be fixed and preserved. On-site inspections also require the production of transcripts, etc., but the subjective factors of public security and judicial personnel, parties, their defenders, and litigation agents cannot distort the objectivity, and cannot therefore change the essential nature of the objectivity of the evidence. Although verbal evidence such as the criminal suspect's confession and defense, the victim's statement and the witness testimony contain human subjective factors and are the unity of objectivity and subjectivity, this cannot change the essential attribute of the objectivity of the evidence. The objectivity of evidence requires public security and judicial personnel to avoid any subjective imagination and guessing during evidence investigation, carefully collect and grasp evidence that can truthfully reflect the case situation, be good at identifying and grasping evidence that can truthfully reflect the case situation, and be good at identifying and eliminating falsehoods. material. Relevance . Relevance, also known as relevance, means that evidence must have an objective connection with the facts of the case and have some practical significance in proving the facts of the criminal case; conversely, facts or materials that have nothing to do with the case cannot become criminal evidence. The relevance of evidence should be understood from the following aspects: (1) Relevance is an objective attribute of evidence. It is not a subjective imagination or imposed connection by the investigators, but is rooted in the objective connection between the evidence facts and the case facts. . (2) The forms of evidence related to the facts of the case are diverse and very complex. The most common one is the causal connection, that is, the fact that the evidence is the cause or result of the crime; or the fact that it is the space, time, conditions, methods, and means related to the crime. They either reflect the motive of the crime, or the means of the crime, or the process of the crime and the environment and conditions in which the crime was committed, or the consequences of the crime, or the fact that the crime does not exist or that the crime was not committed by the criminal suspect or defendant, etc. (3) The relevance of evidence is the reason for the probative power of evidence. The so-called probative force refers to the role of evidence in proving the facts of the case, that is, the value of the evidence in proving the facts of the case. Whether the evidence has probative force on the facts of the case and the degree of its probative force depend on whether the evidence itself is connected with the facts of the case and the closeness and strength of the connection. Generally speaking, if the connection between the evidence and the facts of the case is close, the evidence will have stronger probative power and play a greater role in the litigation. The relevance of evidence requires public security and judicial personnel to pay attention to the following issues when collecting, using and identifying evidence, that is, what facts can be proved by the evidence, and whether this fact has substantive significance for solving the disputes in the case. The law controls this correlation Are there any specific requirements for sex, especially those in substantive law? Legality. Legality means that evidence must be collected and used in accordance with the law.

The legality of evidence is an important guarantee for the objectivity and relevance of evidence, and is also an important condition for the evidence to have legal effect. The legality of evidence mainly includes the following contents: (1) The subject who collects and uses evidence must be legal. Only evidence collected and used by the authorized subject as stipulated by law can be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case. (2) The provision, collection and review of evidence must comply with legal procedural requirements. Whether it is public security and judicial personnel collecting evidence, or parties or other litigation participants providing evidence, it should be legal. (3) The form of evidence should be legal, that is, the evidence materials used to prove the facts of the case must meet legal requirements in form, that is, the eight types of evidence stipulated in the Criminal Procedure Law. At the same time, the form in which evidence is presented should also meet the requirements of the law. For example, physical evidence and documentary evidence must be attached to the file and transferred with the case. Those that cannot be attached to the file must be attached by taking photos, videos, making models, etc.; witness testimonies, victim statements, criminal suspects’ statements, etc. , The defendant's confession and defense should be fixed in writing, and after verification, they should be signed and sealed by the witness, victim, criminal suspect, and defendant; the appraisal opinion must be in written form, signed and sealed by the appraiser; inspection , Inspection transcripts and on-site transcripts, respectively in the form of written transcripts, drawings, photographs, videos, etc. as needed. The written transcripts must be signed and stamped by the inspection personnel, on-site witnesses, etc. (4) Evidence must be produced and verified through legal procedures before it can be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law, in cases heard at ordinary levels, witness testimony must be questioned and cross-examined by the prosecutor, the victim, the defendant, and the defender in court; physical evidence must be presented in court for the parties to identify; witnesses who are not present in court must Testimonial transcripts, appraisal opinions, inspection and inspection transcripts, and other documents used as evidence shall be read out in court, and the opinions of the prosecutor, parties, defenders, and agents ad litem shall be heard. Materials that have not been verified by the court to be true shall not be used as the basis for finalizing a case. In order to ensure the legitimacy of evidence, Article 52 of my country’s Criminal Procedure Law clearly stipulates that judges, prosecutors, and investigators must follow legal procedures to collect evidence that can prove the guilt or innocence of criminal suspects or defendants, and the seriousness of the crime. All kinds of evidence. It is strictly prohibited to use torture to extract confessions and to collect evidence through threats, inducements, deceptions and other illegal methods, and no one may be forced to prove his or her guilt. To sum up, criminal evidence has three basic attributes: objectivity, relevance and legality. The three are interrelated and indispensable. Objectivity and relevance involve the content of criminal evidence, while legality involves the form of criminal evidence. The objectivity and relevance of criminal evidence need to be reviewed and tested through litigation procedures, and the legality of criminal evidence is the legal guarantee for the objectivity and relevance of criminal evidence. Objectivity, relevance and legality demonstrate the unity of content and form of criminal evidence.

3. The significance of criminal evidence Criminal evidence plays an important role in criminal proceedings, mainly in the following aspects: (1) Evidence is the basis for criminal proceedings; (2) Evidence is the basis for judicial justice. basis; (3) evidence is the only means to prove criminal facts; (4) evidence is a powerful weapon to prompt criminal suspects and defendants to plead guilty and accept reform; (5) evidence protects innocent persons from criminal prosecution Guarantee; (6) Evidence is a tool for socialist legal education.

IV. Basic principles of the criminal evidence system It is generally believed that the basic principles of the criminal evidence system include the principle of evidence adjudication, the principle of free testimony and the principle of direct speech. (1) Principles of evidence-based adjudication The principle of evidence-based adjudication, also known as evidence-based adjudication doctrine and evidence-based principle, means that the determination of case facts must be supported by corresponding evidence. Without evidence or insufficient evidence, the facts of the case cannot be determined. In the early history of the development of litigation, case referees generally used proof methods such as divine judgment, duel judgment, and oath judgment. This way of proving the facts of the case is an "irrational" judicial proof method, which is mainly limited by the human cognitive ability and economic foundation at the time. With the accumulation of human experience and knowledge and the improvement of cognitive abilities, a rational judicial proof method has emerged and replaced the irrational judicial proof method, which is the evidence adjudication method. This method requires the judge to determine the facts of the case based on evidence that has gone through legal formal investigation procedures. Evidence occupies a dominant position in judgment with its unique rational proof function, and the principle of evidence judgment has become the founding principle of the modern evidence system.

Generally speaking, the principles of evidence adjudication include the following four aspects: (1) Determining the facts of a case must rely on evidence. Without evidence, the facts of a case cannot be determined. (2) The evidence used to determine the facts of the case must have evidence capacity, that is, it must have evidence qualifications. (3) The evidence used to decide the case must be evidence verified to be true in court, unless otherwise provided by law. (4) The evidence in the entire case must meet the statutory standard of proof before the facts of the case can be determined. Article 55 of my country’s Criminal Procedure Law stipulates that the sentencing of all cases must focus on evidence and investigation and research, and confessions must not be taken lightly. If there is only the defendant's confession and no other evidence, the defendant cannot be found guilty and punished; if there is no defendant's confession and the evidence is reliable and sufficient, the defendant can be found guilty and punished. The evidence is reliable and sufficient and should meet the following conditions: the facts leading to conviction and sentencing are all supported by evidence; the evidence on which the case is decided is verified to be true through legal procedures; comprehensive evidence in the entire case eliminates reasonable doubts about the facts identified. Article 200 stipulates that the collegial panel shall conduct deliberation and make a judgment based on the ascertained facts, evidence and relevant legal provisions. Among them, item 3 of this article stipulates that if the evidence is insufficient and the defendant cannot be found guilty, a not guilty verdict shall be made because the evidence is insufficient and the alleged crime cannot be established. Although our country's Criminal Procedure Law does not clearly stipulate the principles of evidence adjudication, it gives great affirmation to the decisive role of evidence in determining facts, which is consistent with the basic requirements of the principles of evidence adjudication. Relevant judicial interpretations have made clearer provisions on the principles of evidence adjudication. Article 61 of the Supreme People's Court's "Interpretation" and Article 2 of the "Evidence Regulations for Death Penalty Cases" both clearly stipulate: "The determination of the facts of the case must be based on evidence." Central documents and judicial interpretations in recent years have further clarified the use of "evidence-based adjudication". "This legal term. The "Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues in Comprehensively Promoting the Rule of Law" states that it is necessary to "comprehensively implement the rules of evidence adjudication." The "Regulations on Effectively Preventing Unjust, False and Wrong Cases" issued by the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission in 2013 also clearly stated that the principle of evidence-based adjudication must be adhered to. Article 5 of the "Opinions on Establishing and Improving the Working Mechanism to Prevent Unjust, False and Wrongful Criminal Cases" issued by the Supreme People's Court in 2013 stipulates: "Adhere to the principle of evidence-based adjudication. The determination of case facts must be based on evidence. Evidence should be reviewed and identified in accordance with legal procedures. "To determine the defendant's guilt, the standard of proof that the evidence is reliable and sufficient should be applied." The above-mentioned laws, judicial interpretations and related documents show that the principle of evidence adjudication has been established in our country, and the main content of this principle has been absorbed by our country's laws and judicial interpretations. . (2) The principle of free trial and error The principle of free trial and error refers to the selection and rejection of evidence, the probative strength of evidence, and the degree of knowledge of the facts of the case. The law does not clearly stipulate it in advance, but is formed by the subject of the adjudication according to his or her own conscience and rationality. Inner conviction is used as an evidence principle to determine the facts of the case. In criminal proceedings, the evidence that serves as the basis for the final decision generally goes through the process of evidence discovery, collection, cross-examination, and certification of evidence. The principle of free evidence does not apply to all these processes related to evidence. It only applies to all processes. These processes related to evidence are principles that only apply to the final judgment stage. The principle of free evidence was created at the end of the 18th century on the basis of overcoming the arbitrary and rigid shortcomings of the legal evidence system. It is widely adopted by Western countries, especially countries with civil law systems. It is generally believed that the principle of free mental evidence includes two aspects, one is free judgment, and the other is inner conviction. The so-called "free judgment" means that unless otherwise provided by law, the evidence and its probative force are freely judged by the judge, and the law does not provide for it in advance. When judges judge the probative force, they are not subject to any external influence or legal constraints on the probative force of evidence. It should be noted that "freedom" does not mean arbitrary and unrestricted, and free conscience does not mean allowing judges to make arbitrary decisions based on personal emotions and knowledge. The "freedom" in free evidence is relative freedom, which is subject to a series of legal systems and regulations in the entire legal system. Judges should apply various evidence rules and carefully consider the entire process of court trial evidence investigation and debate. Basically, make judgments on the facts of the case based on evidence and free evidence. The so-called "inner conviction" refers to the inner belief formed by the judge through the judgment of the evidence, and it should reach the level of deep belief, so as to determine the facts. "Inner conviction" prohibits judges from determining facts based on specious and doubtful subjective feelings.

There has always been considerable controversy over the principle of free testimonials in our country. For a long time in the past, free-minded evidence was not recognized, and it was believed that free-minded evidence was based on idealism, which was contrary to the guiding ideology and principles of judging evidence in our country. In recent years, China has gradually realized that the principle of free conscience has its rationality. Article 64 of the "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation" of the Supreme People's Court stipulates that judges shall comprehensively and objectively review the evidence in accordance with legal procedures, follow the provisions of the law, follow the professional ethics of judges, and use logical reasoning and daily life experience to evaluate the evidence. Whether the evidence has probative force and the degree of probative force shall be independently judged, and the reasons and results of the judgment shall be disclosed. This provision absorbs the spirit of the principle of free mental evidence, indicating that the principle of free mental evidence has been recognized by our country to a certain extent. (3) Direct Speech Principle A. Concept The Direct Speech Principle means that the judge must personally listen to the oral statements of the parties, witnesses and other litigation participants in court. The facts and evidence of the case must be presented orally in court by both the prosecution and the defense. Conduct investigation by means of debate and cross-examination. The principle of direct speech includes the principle of direct speech and the principle of speech. Because the two are closely related to the attendance of the relevant litigant in court as a prerequisite, they are theoretically collectively called the principle of direct speech. The so-called direct principle means that judges must have direct contact with litigants and litigation participants and directly hear case factual materials and evidence. The principle of directness can be divided into the principle of direct trial and the principle of direct evidence collection. The former means that when a judge hears a case, the prosecutor, parties and other litigation participants should be present. Unless otherwise specified by law, if the above-mentioned persons are not present, the court hearing shall not be conducted. Otherwise, the trial activities will be invalid. In this sense, the principle of direct hearing is also called the principle of presence. The principle of direct evidence collection means that the judge's investigation of evidence must be conducted in person and cannot be carried out by others, and the evidence must be directly heard and verified in court, and evidence must not be admitted through written review. The so-called oral principle means that court hearings must be conducted in the form of oral statements. This includes the prosecution and defense having to make statements, evidence and arguments orally, witnesses and appraisers having to testify or make statements orally, and the judge conducting inquiries and investigations orally. Unless there are special provisions in the law, any evidence without oral investigation shall not be adopted as the basis for finalizing the case. B. Significance The principle of direct speech is of great significance to the realization of a fair trial. 1. Conducive to achieving procedural fairness. The parties, especially the defendant, directly participate in the court hearing, and other litigation participants attend the court in person, so that the prosecution and defense can equally exercise their rights to produce evidence, cross-examination and debate, protect the parties' right to participate in the trial, and enable various trial systems prescribed by law , principles and procedures are implemented, which is conducive to achieving procedural fairness. 2. Conducive to ascertaining the facts of the case. The judge participates in the evidence investigation and directly listens to the statements and debates of the prosecution and defense, which is conducive to reviewing and judging the authenticity of the evidence, making accurate judgments on the facts of the case, forming reliable evidence, and making fair judgments. C. Although my country's Criminal Procedure Law does not clearly stipulate the principle of direct speech, there are provisions regarding notification of witnesses and appraisers to appear in court in the first and second instance procedures, provisions on cross-examination by the prosecution and defense and the victim in court, and provisions on the prosecutor , the provisions that the victim, defendant, and defender can directly ask questions to witnesses and appraisers with the permission of the presiding judge, etc., all reflect the principle of directness and rhetoric in the trial. According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law and the principle of direct speech, the People's Court should do the following: 1. Timely notify and ensure that relevant persons appear in court. It should be a general principle for witnesses to appear in court to testify, and failure to appear can only be an exception. 2. During the court hearing, the judges of the collegial panel must always be present in the court and participate in the entire process of the trial. 3. All evidence, including evidence collected by the court at the request of the parties or ex officio, must be presented in court and cross-examined in court. 4. Ensure that both the prosecution and the defense have sufficient opportunities and time to make statements and debates. The principle of direct speech should be strictly followed during trials under ordinary procedures, but exceptions may be made when trials under summary procedures.