??????
First, the basic facts of the case
1998 ? 4 ? 22 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??? ,??????? ??? .?????????????????????????????????????????? ??? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????1999 ? 2 ? 5 ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
On April 22, 1998, Kunming police from the park on the circular road sidewalk a car Changhe van found a man and a woman was shot and killed in the car, their properties being robbed empty. After investigation, the deceased was two police officers, the men called [(a pseudonym), the woman called Xiao Xiang Wang (a pseudonym). As a result of a major case, Kunming police set up task force dedicated to investigating the case. Through a series of work, the deceased Wang Xiaoxiang husband Du Peiwu (a pseudonym) into the task force's line of sight. The panel cited Du Peiwu, and carried out a series of identification, testing, inspection, and finally determines the major criminal suspects, Du Peiwu began has refused to recognize the around Du Peiwu, but later as the confession of guilt. 1999 February 5, Du Peiwu committed intentional homicide sentenced to immediate execution, deprived of political rights for life, after the verdict, Du Peiwu refuses to accept, put forward to appeal, Provincial Higher People's court heard the case that questions and doubts the existence of the case, on the basis of upheld the, and downgrade the death sentence suspended for two years. Since then Du Peiwu was put into prison.
2000 ? 6 ? 14 ?????????????? ??? ?????????????????????????????????????????2000 ? 7 ? 6 ??????????????????????????
June 14, 2000, Kunming police cracked Yang Tianyong (a pseudonym) robbery gang murder case, the victim of the accident was found Wang Junbo, Wang Xiaoxiang's murderer is Yang Tianyong three. The truth is the case of Du Peiwu, July 6, 2000, Yunnan Province Higher People's Court of retrial Du Peiwu innocence, release in court.
??????
Two, case analysis
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Can say Du Peiwu although act of extorting a confession by torture, but this does not lead to injustice, the only reason, in the investigation process, the case introduces a lot of scientific evidence, such as: gunshot residue and attached to the soil with a determination, dogs smell identification, the polygraph etc., but regret is misled by the wrong concept of scientific evidence, and finally to the case leads to the wrong direction of the investigation. Through this case, we analyze the related problems of scientific evidence.
??????? “??????????21 ???????????????????????”?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????
Professor He Jiahong said: "it is not an exaggeration of the language, 21 of the actual judicial proof will be the evidence as the main carrier of scientific evidence." It can be said, our judicial proof, from the ignorance of the gods referee to believe the defendant population for era gradually to rely on the scientific evidence of the transition era. But have to say, the scientific evidence is a double-edged sword. It can not only through the analysis of its sophisticated technology, rapid specified case investigation direction, due to the scientific evidence of excessive superstition, leads to injustice occurs.
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????
Scientific evidence, also known as scientific and technological evidence, is usually the use of science and technology principles and methods of discovery, collection and preservation of evidence, it is different from the traditional evidence of the characteristics of its scientific evidence. For example: electronic evidence, fingerprint identification, voice identification, toxicology, etc..
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
The admissibility of scientific evidence has experienced a process from negation to caution, and then to the positive. Especially at present, with the rapid development of scientific evidence, the reliability of scientific evidence continues to improve, and the application of scientific evidence in criminal cases is becoming more and more common.
??????????????????
In this case, the investigation organ with scientific evidence as follows:
? ?? ??????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????10 ???? ?? 3 ??????? ????? 43 ??????41 ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????“?????”??????????????????????????“????”?“????”???????????????????????????????????????? 1998 ? 4 ? 20 ?????? 1998?8 ?3 ???????????????????????????????????????????
(a) dogs smell identification: refers to the investigating officers from the scene of the crime from the smell source, let the dogs sniffing smell and with the defendant body odor compared to determine the defendant to an on-site identification method. Due to the influence of many factors of dogs smell identification results can be affected by the dogs habits and abilities, physical condition, and dogs identification conclusions have probative force and national practices are not the same. In Japan, the recognition of recognition of the admissibility of evidence. But in our country because there is no complete set of scientific methods, so in the law has not been included in the scope of physical evidence. In this case, Du Peiwu is controlled by the police, 10 dogs (which 3 the exploit dog) to him were 43 times odor identification, 41 identified Du Peiwu smell and Chang closed van smell the same that Du Peiwu driving the car. These conclusions make investigators wrong think Du Peiwu is the suspect and increased the trial. However, this smell identification is not reliable, for this smell identification conclusion, defense lawyers put forward: in this case the on-site inspection record "and the scene photos, only record car clutch pedal attached to a footprint left Earth, so the dogs with the smell of Du Peiwu shoes and stockings and the brake pedal, the accelerator pedal" attached to the footprint left earth make a comparison in the smell, and therefore suspect that the source of mud. Step back and say, the case is a crime in the incidence of April 20, 1998, on 3 until August 1998 by the hound screening for supplementary inspection, olfactory, as the source of the long-term storage of change and the failure possibility greatly, the reliability of the conclusion is poor.
? ?? ????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 4 ? 20 ?????????????
(II) Raman test: in the use of firearms shooting, the gunpowder stored in the cartridge in the ignition moment intense burning, its energy will warhead suddenly pushed away from, not gunpowder residue burned to the part with ammunition spewed out from the gun muzzle, part of the attached in the barrel and a part of will from rob sprayed out and attached to the shooter gun hands and clothes. Raman test is a good way to test this trace material evidence. Detection of military firearms shooting residues in Du Peiwu on the sleeve, indicating that Du Peiwu was wearing the clothes of shooting. But in the rehabilitation of several police officers confirmed that the defendant Du Peiwu had twice in organizational units shooting training, shooting has used in pistols, rifles, machine guns and so on and Du Peiwu usually do not love to wash clothes and came back after the shooting will be dirty clothes lying around is a few months, so in Du Peiwu sleeves found gunshot residue, and not confirmed the defendant Du Peiwu on the night of April 20, with a pistol to kill two of the victims.
? ?? CPS ?????????? ?????????????????????????????????????? “4 ? 20 ????????????”?“???????????????”?“??????????????????”??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? 6? 30 ??? 7 ? 19 ????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????“????”,????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????1999 ??????????????? CPS ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
(III) the CPS test is the polygraph test: in this case, a polygraph expert of Du Peiwu the lie detector test, test questions and cases had close contact, such as: "the night of April 20, have not left rehab?" "Are you on the bus to shoot them down?" "Did you use the Wang Junbo ear gun they killed?" Etc.. Du Peiwu just made answer, but the polygraph shows Du Peiwu said was a lie. Polygraph experts became convinced that Du Peiwu should be informed or participating in the crime. According to the investigators think Du Peiwu conceals the truth, so from the evening of June 30 to July 19, of Du Peiwu of extorting a confession by torture. At that time, defense lawyers also proposed: before the investigative organs early was commissioned to make a lie detector test, and no grasp identification is Du Peiwu actualize homicide, and after a lie detector test, it becomes a "sufficient evidence", but said the case, error reporting polygraph become an accomplice of extorting a confession by torture. II on the polygraph recoverable and proof of the force, various countries adopt the attitude inconsistent, scholars in our country for polygraph use attitude also exist many differences. Scholars believe that lie detector, belonging to the technical means of investigation, the results of polygraph as a tester using the knowledge and skills for analysis by recording instrument is tested human physiological response to the judgment conclusion, should have the evidence ability, can be used as evidence. Third, opponents argue that the polygraph is involved in the testing of various physiological parameters of the body, not the facts of the case itself were collected and identified, therefore it cannot serve as a independent litigation evidence. 4. In 1999, the Supreme People's Procuratorate in the on the CPS multichannel heart tests can be used as evidence in litigation use replied, "clearly stipulates the Polygraph Conclusion cannot be used as evidence, allows us to in the criminal judicial practice, Polygraph Conclusion does not have the evidence ability has become the conclusion.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? DNA ??????????????????????? ????????? 2004 ????????????????????????????????? DNA ?????????????????? 99%.??????????????????????????????????????2005 ? 1 ? 6 ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Scientific evidence brings a convenient way to the judicial proof, but it also brings new challenges to the judicial officers. The legal person of legal norms may well, but for the professional field of science may be absolutely ignorant of. Because of the lack of experience and knowledge of scientific evidence, investigators may be rash to rule out some scientific evidence or blind faith in scientific evidence. It can be said that every scientific evidence exists in the world with an error probability and error. We all say that no two people in the world have the same fingerprints, but the computer that compares the fingerprints will have an error probability. For example: in the UK, a called Shirley McKay German woman for crime scene fingerprint was identified as she is in prison, but later found the original computer errors of the two subtle difference ears fingerprint identification, cast injustice. In the most reliable DNA evidence, the procuratorial daily there have also been reports a case of Oolong: Xinjiang Korla City Public Security Bureau in 2004 once to a victim's family made the appraisal conclusion notice ", said the DNA identification of unidentified bodies, bodies and for the identification of human paternity probability reached 99%. The body was cremated shortly, Korla City Public Security Bureau again in Library comfort road at a desert sand dug up a corpse, January 6, 2005, Korla City Public Security Bureau again to family made the appraisal conclusion notice", conclusion is the second body is reported in the victim. In fact, a lot of mistakes are not caused by investigators intentionally, but investigators or experts have no intention to make mistakes. Scientific evidence the innumerable injustice can be washed, but there are also risks can not be ignored, this is actually issues shared by any evidence.
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? DNA ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????DNA ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
People always make mistakes, and scientific evidence appears to be inevitable. In addition to the appraiser's intentional fraud or perfunctory, scientific evidence sometimes because of the experiment equipment and method of discounted, even like DNA experiments, it is entirely possible that there is the risk of errors. Actually, scientific evidence just judicial proof one way, the it regarded as a scourge, or will it is regarded as a God, is we can't reason to treat the two extremes of scientific evidence. As for the scientific evidence of adopting question, our country there is no clear standards and regulations, so we can use of the United States to receive evidence standard, the United States received the standard of scientific evidence for: scientific evidence of the test, the scientific theory is enough has been published, and after peer review; scientific theory known or potential error rate, in the scientific community generally accepted degree. According to this standard, we are faced with a variety of scientific evidence, such as: handwriting identification, identification of hair, voiceprint identification, identification of blood, DNA identification, polygraph appraisal can make admissibility judgement based on their degree of development and Implementation conditions.. In the proof of scientific evidence, it is necessary to conduct a case study. Due to the ability to ensure reliable evidence for the evidence custodian chain system, expert witness in court system, the cross examination system, reinforcing the evidence principle in our country is not perfect, so in the admissibility of scientific evidence should is more strict and cautious.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
We can say we injustice misjudged rate relative to the US each year, the huge caseloads than, can be said to be minimal, however, for injustice behind family, damage is 100%, we as authority to review the evidence should be strictly the relevant evidence, to ensure that the case fair and impartial.