检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:张斌[1]
出 处:《现代法学》2005年第4期100-104,共5页Modern Law Science
基 金:国家社科基金项目"科学证据采信基本原理研究"(05CFX018)
摘 要:录像材料再现案件事实能力的优势和劣势都同样明显,这决定了录像证据有着较为特殊的可采性规则。美国、英国、加拿大和日本的立法例表明,录像证据可采有三个基本法理,即录像证据与录音证据的可采性规则不一致;影响录像证据可采性的特定因素是形式真实性要件;不同表现形式的录像证据可采性规则不同。我国有关录像证据的规定存在诸多问题,应当按照上述法理加以完善。Video evidence has its merits and demerits while revealing the facts of a case, which determines that rules for its admissibility are peculiar.Three basic principles of the admissibility of video evidence can be found in legislations in the USA,Great Britain,Canada and Japan.Firstly,the admissibility of video evidence is different from that of record evidence.Secondly,what concerns the admissibility of video evidence is the requirement of its actual forms.Thirdly,different forms of video evidence have different admissibility rules.Since the rules of the admissibility of video evidence are far from satisfactory in China,they should be improved in accordance with the aforesaid three principles.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.15