我国被告人供述排除规则适用范围的实务观察——以2013-2017年中国裁判文书网公开的文书为研究对象  

A Practical Observation of the Application Scope of China’s Exclusionary Rules of Defendants’ Confessions: Based on the Judicial Documents Published by China Judgements Online from 2013 to 2017

作　　者：吴敏功 刘亚会 Wu Mingong;Liu Yahui

机构地区：[1]北京华宇元典信息服务有限公司法律研究院

出　　处：《中国社会科学院研究生院学报》2019年第5期123-134,共12页Journal of Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

摘　　要：非法证据排除制度中,被告人供述排除规则的适用范围广受关注。梳理2013-2017年中国裁判文书网公开的被告人供述排除文书发现:法院排除供述范围的样态较为丰富,针对是否排除引诱、欺骗、疲劳审讯手段获取的供述,法官既进行了积极探索,又存在显著分歧;讯问录音录像制度对供述的排除发挥了重要作用。排除规则适用范围的完善,可以加强实务的推动作用:明确排除指供、虚假许诺获取的供述;针对“疲劳审讯”的界定,可从正反两方面入手;重点关注讯问录音录像制度,促使其“最佳证据”功能的发挥。In the system of the exclusion of illegal evidence, the application scope for the exclusionary rules of defendants’ confessions has received wide attention.Based on the relevant judicial documents published by China Judgements Online from 2013 to 2017, this paper finds that courts’ practices of applying exclusionary rules of defendants’ confessions are diverse.In other words, judges have made positive explorations and hold remarkable different views on whether to exclude defendants’ confessions obtained by temptation, deception and gruelling trial.Moreover, the documents also show that the system of synchronous audio and video recording of interrogations plays a significant role in the exclusion of defendants’ confessions.The improvement of the application scope of exclusionary rules can be made in the following aspects.Firstly, defendant s confessions obtained by directions and false promises should be definitely excluded.Secondly, the definition of “gruelling trial” can be made from both positive and negative perspectives.Thirdly, the system of synchronous audio and video recording of interrogations should be focused on, so as to promote its function of the “best evidence”.

关 键 词：裁判文书 排除规则 引诱欺骗 疲劳审讯 录音录像 

分 类 号：D915[政治法律—诉讼法学]