非法证据排除规则的中国范式：困境与出路/刘 磊(12)
[30] Massachusetts v. Sheppard[1984]. U.S. Supreme Court(468 U.S. 981).
[31] State v. O’Bremski[1967]. Washington 2d Court(70).
[32] Nix v. Williams[1984]. U.S. Supreme Court(467 U.S. 431).
[33] William Geller. Enforcing the Fourth Amendment: The Exclusionary Rule and Its Alternatives. Washington University Law Quarterly，1975，(3).
Exclusionary Rule Paradigm in China: Dilemma and Solutions
Liu Lei (Tongji University)
Abstract There exist many disparities between actual effects and legislation intent on the prob- lem of Chinese Exclusionary Rule, Chinese criminal courts are too weak to exclusive unlawfully obtained evidence which also brings in negative exclusion model in judicial practice. Chinese legal statutes on Exclusionary Rule still have some loopholes and Chinese special judicial backgrounds may lead to magnetic field effect for Chinese judges. Because Chinese Courts have not higher judicial authority than America, Chinese judges cannot be so passive as U.S. Supreme Court is, so as to make judicial decisions on Exclusionary Rule case-by-case. We can find both some good values and lessons from American Exclusionary Rule’s legal history. If China try to solve all the problems on unlawfully obtained evidence, first of all, it is necessary to accept the ideas of preventive vindication and the rule of “fruits of poisonous tree”. Secondly, Chinese judge must decide good options in different models such as absolute exclusion or relative exclusion on illegal evidence. Finally, legislators are the best department to make detailed and bright-line standard to deter police wrongful and illegal conduct. Only by these ways can China seek the best model according to judicial background.
总共13页
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] 12
[13] 上一页 下一页