Misconceptions Regarding the Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence in the Pre-Trial Stage of Criminal Proceedings

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202614108

Author(s)

Yunjie Yu

Affiliation(s)

School of Law, Shantou University, Shantou, Guangdong, China

Abstract

Bound by due process principles, the two major Western legal systems impose strict requirements on means and standards of proof only during the trial phase, resulting in a clear distinction between pre-trial and trial procedures in criminal litigation. The non-evaluation of evidence materials' legal attributes during pre-trial proceedings serves as the logical starting point for substantive trials. Consequently, the current Chinese practice of including pre-trial investigative and prosecutorial authorities as entities subject to exclusion rules is questionable, running counter to judicial reform measures centered on trials. Potential avenues for improvement include amending relevant legal provisions, enhancing the functionality of pre-trial conferences, and restricting the use of investigative case files during the trial phase.

Keywords

Pre-Trial Proceedings; Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence; Trial-Centered Approach; Investigative Files

References

[1] Fan Chongyi and Wu Guangsheng. The Exclusionary Rule for Illegally Obtained Evidence Before Iral: Textual Interpretation and Institutional Prospects. China Criminal Law Journal, 2012(11):851. [2] Zong Bo, Shan Jingge. The Legality of Collecting Evidence Before Criminal Case Filing. Evidence Science, 2025(5):517. [3] Zhang Yuqi, Liu Jieyang, Systematic Governance of Exclusions of Illegal Evidence in Criminal Charges. Theoretical Exploration, 2025(6):121. [4] Long Zongzhi. The “Trial-Centered” Reform and Its Limits. Chinese and Foreign Law, 2015(4):851. [5] Sun Yuan. On the "Clues or Materials" for Initiating the Exclusion Procedure of Illegally Obtained Evidence. Legal Forum, 2025(1):16. [6] Si Huaqiang. The Plaintiff in Inquisitorial Proceedings in Medieval Western Europe. Jurist, 2010(2):68. [7] Si Huaqiang. Form and Spirit. Shanghai Sanlian Bookstore Press, 2012:177. [8] Tomas N. Tentler. Sin and Confession on the Eve of the Reformation. Princeton University, 1977:23. [9] De Civ. Dei, translated and quoted by Richard Shelly Hartigan. Saint Augustine on Warand Killing: The Problem of the Innocent. Journal of the History of Ideas, 195, 204:27. [10] Si Huaqiang. The principle of “Prohibiting the Reversal of Effect as Cause”: From the Perspective of the Origin and Function of the Right to Remain Silent. Law, 2023(5):143. [11] Richard M. Fraher. Conviction According to Conscience: The Medieval Jurists' Debate Concerning Judicial Discretion and the Law of Proof. Law and History Review, 1989:23-88. [12] Frank R. Herrmann, Brownlow M. Speer. Facing the Accuser: Ancient and Medieval Precursors of the Confrontation Clause. Virginia Journal of International Law, 1994, 34:481. [13] Ullmann Walter. Some Medieval Principles of Criminal Procedure. The Judicial Review, 1947. [14] Ian Hacking. The Emergence of Probability. Cambridge University Press, 1984:33-36. [15] John H. Langbein. Prosecution Crime in the Renaissance: England, Germany, France. Harvard University Press, 1974:17.