Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Exclusionary Rule and the Reform of Pretrial Procedure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence in China

Part of the book series: Masterpieces of Contemporary Jurisprudents in China ((MCJC))

  • 173 Accesses

Abstract

The establishment of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence has a great influence on the pretrial procedure of criminal process, which is represented by the ongoing reform of investigation procedure and the function of the procuratorate. The Criminal Procedural Law 2012 provides that illegal evidence identified at investigation and prosecution stage shall be excluded.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Chunlei (2014).

  2. 2.

    Zhang (2012).

  3. 3.

    The interrogation shall be conducted in prescribed places in strict accordance with relevant regulations; the interrogation process shall be videotaped completely and synchronically in strict accordance with relevant regulations, and the interrogation process in all cases shall be videotaped gradually.

  4. 4.

    Xin (2014).

  5. 5.

    Guangzhong (2014, p. 9).

  6. 6.

    Guangzhong (2014, p. 10).

  7. 7.

    Zongzhi et al. (2011).

  8. 8.

    Guosong (2014).

  9. 9.

    Sheng (2008).

  10. 10.

    Deyong (2015).

  11. 11.

    “Speedy verdict procedure for minor cases”, is an important procedural reform in China, which is often regarded as the supplementary system of the trial-centered procedural system reform.

  12. 12.

    Xin (2014).

  13. 13.

    Guoqing and Haoxin (2013).

  14. 14.

    Jianlin et al. (2011).

  15. 15.

    Xiaoqing (2009).

  16. 16.

    Deyong (2015).

  17. 17.

    Deyong (2015).

  18. 18.

    Zongzhi et al. (2011).

  19. 19.

    Guoqing and Haoxin (2013).

  20. 20.

    Many modern procedural systems take the defense lawyer as the important premise. See Damaska (2006).

  21. 21.

    Deyong (2015).

  22. 22.

    Yinghui and Xiaona (2001).

  23. 23.

    Ruihua (2014).

References

  • Chunlei M (2014) On the application of illegal evidence exclusionary rule. J Jilin Univ 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaska MR (2006) Evidence: a comparative study (trans: Hongyao W, Xiaona W). Chinese People’s Public Security University Press, p 248

    Google Scholar 

  • Deyong S (2015) On the reform of trial-centered procedural system. China Leg Sci (3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Guangzhong C (ed) (2014) Research on the application of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in China. Peking University Press, p 9

    Google Scholar 

  • Guangzhong C (ed) (2014) Research on the application of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence in China. Peking University Press, p 10

    Google Scholar 

  • Guoqing C, Haoxin L (2013) On improving the work mechanism for preventing and correcting miscarriages of justice. Procuratorial Daily

    Google Scholar 

  • Guosong G (2014) Separation of investigation and detention as an effective means to restrict torture. Southern Weekend

    Google Scholar 

  • Jianlin B et al (2011) On improving the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. Polit Sci Law (6)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruihua C (2014) On the issue of invalid defense in the criminal proceeding. J Suzhou Univ 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheng L (ed) (2008) Defence system and the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence. Peking University Press. pp 157–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Xiaoqing Z (2009) The objective and impartial duty of public prosecutor and its development in China. China Leg Sci (2)

    Google Scholar 

  • Xin Z (2014) Implementation and improvement of the exclusionary rule of illegal evidence obtained by public security organs. J Chin People’s Public Secur Univ (3)

    Google Scholar 

  • Yinghui and Xiaona (2001) The jurisprudence and construction of the evidence-discovery system. China J Crim Law (4)

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J (ed) (2012) Training materials of the new criminal procedural law for judges. Law Press, p 136

    Google Scholar 

  • Zongzhi L et al (2011) Research on the rules of criminal evidence in China. China Procuporatorate Press, p 439

    Google Scholar 

  • Zongzhi L et al. (2011) Research on the rules of criminal evidence in China. Chinese Procuratorial Press, p 9

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Supreme People’s Court of China, Beijing, China

    Jingkun Liu

Authors
  1. Jingkun Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jingkun Liu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Law Press China

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Liu, J. (2019). The Exclusionary Rule and the Reform of Pretrial Procedure. In: The Exclusionary Rule of Illegal Evidence in China. Masterpieces of Contemporary Jurisprudents in China. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3756-7_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3756-7_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3755-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3756-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation