论文部分内容阅读
在美国,控、辩、审三方的诉讼角色不同,对待“善意例外”的立场也并不一致。控方希望扩大非法证据排除规则“善意例外”的适用范围,因为“善意例外”激励警察“善意”地执法。而辩方对“善意例外”持排斥立场,希望尽可能排除非法证据。但“善意例外”并不阻碍辩方寻求违宪救济。作为中立机关的司法机关立场具有两面性,一方面希望通过“善意例外”采纳非法证据并查清事实,打击犯罪;另一方面司法机关也严格把握“善意例外”中“善意”的客观标准,警惕以“善意例外”之名放纵违法取证的行为。
In the United States, the roles played by the three parties in charge of control, defense and trial are different, and the positions treated as “goodwill exceptions” are not the same. The prosecution hopes to expand the scope of the rule of exclusion of illegitimate evidence, as “goodwill exceptions” to encourage the police to enforce the law in good faith. The defense of “goodwill exception” hold rejection position, hoping to rule out as much as possible illegal evidence. However, “goodwill exception ” does not hinder the defense to seek relief from the constitution. The position of the judiciary as a neutral organ has two sides: on the one hand, it hopes to adopt “goodwill exceptions” to adopt illegal evidence and find out facts to crack down on crimes; on the other hand, the judiciary also strictly controls “goodwill exceptions” and “goodwill ”The objective criteria, vigilance to “ goodwill exception ”in the name of indulging illegal forensics behavior.