论警讯录音录像证据  

On Evidence of Audio-visual Recording in Police Interrogation

作　　者：吴纪奎[1,2] 

机构地区：[1]天津市高级人民法院 [2]北京大学

出　　处：《证据科学》2013年第3期365-374,共10页Evidence Science

摘　　要：2012年《刑事诉讼法》以立法的形式确立了警讯录音录像制度。如何科学理解、切实贯彻落实这一制度是摆在理论界和司法实务界面前的一个新课题。在科学理解警讯录音录像制度方面,对"犯罪嫌疑人"应做实质性解释,对"可能"的界定应以法定最高刑为准,在录音或录像方式的选择上应坚持录像优先原则。为了切实发挥录音录像制度的功能,我们应建立警讯录音录像的随案移送和审前开示制度,并对违反录音录像规定的行为确立相应的实体性和程序性制裁措施。在程序性制裁方面,应当可反驳地推定违反警讯录音录像规定获得的犯罪嫌疑人供述不具有可采性。即便控方推翻了这一推定,也应允许对警讯笔录的证明力做不利推论。The new criminal procedure law establishes that the sound or image of the interrogation shall be recorded. How to understand it scientifically and implement it effectively is a new topic placed in front of both the theoretical and judicial circles. As to the word ＂suspect＂, a substantive interpretation should be made; and as to the word ＂probable＂, it should be defined by maximum statutory penalty; in the choice between audio and video recordings of interrogation, the videotape recording has the priority. In order to play its function effectively, trans ference of those recordings with the dossiers and a discovery before trial should be established. Moreover, substan tive and procedural sanctions against the violation will be imposed. A rebuttal presumption can be made that the suspect＇s statement is inadmissible and it is permitted to make adverse inference to its probative force of the recording of interrogation even if the presumption is overturned by the police.

关 键 词：警讯录音录像 警讯笔录 审前开示 可采性 证明力 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]