File #2462: "2018_Book_MethodologyOfJudicialProofAndP.pdf"
Text
1|Preface|8
1|Contents|15
1|About the Author|16
1|Abbreviations|17
1|1 The Dilemma of Judicial Proof|18
2|1.1 Case Illustrations|18
3|1.1.1 The Case of Peng Yu, Nanjing|18
3|1.1.2 The Case of Xu Yunhe, Tianjin|20
3|1.1.3 Case of Wu Weiqing, Guangdong|21
2|1.2 Empirical Analysis of the Standard of Evidence in Criminal Cases|23
3|1.2.1 The Quality and Quantity of Evidence|24
3|1.2.2 The Quantity of Evidence in the Standard of Conviction|26
3|1.2.3 The Quality of Evidence in the Standard of Conviction|29
2|1.3 Case Study of Evidence Shortage in Wrongful Convictions|31
3|1.3.1 A Summary of the 45 Wrongful Convictions|31
3|1.3.2 Shortages in the Quantity of Evidence in Wrongful ConvictionsID="Fn26"This section discusses shortages in the quantity of evidence separately from shortages in the quality of evidence. When analysing shortages in quantity of evidence, we have not considered the impact of a shortage of quality on the evidence. Take two cases for example. In one, the necessary appraisal opinions are missing. When compared to the second case which does have appraisal opinions, we do not consider whether the quality of the second case’s appraisal opinion meets the standard of evidence.|33
3|1.3.3 Shortages in the Quality of Evidence in Wrongful Convictions|36
2|1.4 Regular Patterns of Evidence Shortage in Wrongful Convictions|40
3|1.4.1 Shortages of Evidence in Critical Links of Judicial Proof|40
3|1.4.2 Shortages of Quality in Testimonial Evidence|41
3|1.4.3 Shortages of Quantity in Physical Evidence|42
2|1.5 Judicial Rulings in Instances of Shortages of Evidence|43
2|References|47
1|2 The History of Judicial Proof|48
2|2.1 Case Illustration|48
2|2.2 Evolution of the Methods of Judicial Proof|52
3|2.2.1 Judicial Proof Mainly with the Evidence of Gods|52
3|2.2.2 Judicial Proof Mainly with the Testimonial Evidence|55
3|2.2.3 Judicial Proof Mainly with the Physical Evidence|57
2|2.3 Development of the System of Judicial Proof|59
3|2.3.1 The Trial by Gods as an Initial Step from Free Proof to Regulated Proof|59
3|2.3.2 The Legal Proof as a Second Try to Go from Free Proof to Regulated Proof|60
3|2.3.3 The Proof with Intimate Conviction as a Big Step to Go Back to Free Proof|63
3|2.3.4 The Regulated Proof Meets the Requirement of Judicial Proof|65
2|2.4 Improvement of the Judicial Proof System in China|68
3|2.4.1 The Basic Mode of Judicial Proof in China Is Free Proof|69
3|2.4.2 China Should Take the Road Towards Regulated Proof|70
3|2.4.3 The Quasi-system of Regulated Proof|72
2|References|77
1|3 The Methods of Judicial Proof|78
2|3.1 Case Illustration|78
2|3.2 Characteristics of Judicial Proof Methods|80
3|3.2.1 Retrograde Thinking|81
3|3.2.2 Adversary Thinking|82
3|3.2.3 Timely Thinking|82
2|3.3 Types of the Judicial Proof Methods|83
3|3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Proof Methods|83
3|3.3.2 Deductive and Inductive Proof Methods|84
3|3.3.3 Elemental and Systematic Proof Methods|85
2|3.4 Method of Individualization|86
3|3.4.1 Concept of Individualization|87
3|3.4.2 The Object of Individualization|89
3|3.4.3 The Basis of Individualization|91
3|3.4.4 The Scientific Foundation of Individualization|92
3|3.4.5 The General Method of Individualization|96
2|3.5 The Method of Logical Inference|99
3|3.5.1 The Concept of Inference|99
3|3.5.2 The Methods of Inference|100
3|3.5.3 The Truthfulness of Inference Premises|101
3|3.5.4 The Inference Premise and the Probative Force of Circumstantial Evidence|102
2|References|105
1|4 The Rules of Judicial Proof|106
2|4.1 Case Illustration|106
2|4.2 Introduction to Rules of Judicial Proof|109
3|4.2.1 Definition of Rules of Judicial Proof|110
3|4.2.2 Nature of Rules of Judicial Proof|111
3|4.2.3 Types of Rules of Judicial Proof|112
3|4.2.4 System of Rules of Judicial Proof|113
2|4.3 General Rules of Assessing Evidence|113
3|4.3.1 The Subjects of Assessing Evidence|114
3|4.3.2 The Objects of Assessing Evidence|114
3|4.3.3 The Contents of Assessing Evidence|115
3|4.3.4 The Modes of Assessing Evidence|117
2|4.4 Admission Rules of Evidence|122
3|4.4.1 General Rules of Admissibility|123
3|4.4.2 Exclusionary Rules of Evidence|123
3|4.4.3 The Rule of Limited Admissibility|131
2|4.5 Evaluation Rules of Evidence|135
3|4.5.1 General Standards for Evaluation of Evidence|135
3|4.5.2 The Rule of Corroborating Evidence|136
3|4.5.3 The Rule of Weight Priority|137
3|4.5.4 The Rule of Publicity of the Intimate Conviction in Free Evaluation|137
2|References|139
1|5 The Burden of Judicial Proof|140
2|5.1 Case Illustration|140
2|5.2 Categories of Judicial Proof|142
3|5.2.1 Self-oriented Proof and Others-Oriented Proof|142
3|5.2.2 Subjects and Objects of the Judicial Proof|143
3|5.2.3 Contents of the Object of Proof|146
2|5.3 Definition of the Burden of Proof|151
3|5.3.1 The Burden of Proof and the Burden of Producing Evidence|151
3|5.3.2 The Burden of Proof and Factual Claims|153
3|5.3.3 Equality and Partiality of Allocation of the Burden of Proof|154
2|5.4 Allocation Rules of the Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings|156
3|5.4.1 General Rules|156
3|5.4.2 Special Rules|158
3|5.4.3 Exemption of the Burden of Proof|165
2|5.5 Allocation Rules of Burden of Proof in Civil Proceedings|167
3|5.5.1 General Rules|167
3|5.5.2 The Burden of Proof in Cases Involving Contract Disputes|169
3|5.5.3 The Burden of Proof in Cases Involving Tort Disputes|170
3|5.5.4 Inverting the Burden of Proof in Civil Proceedings|170
2|References|172
1|6 The Standards of Judicial Proof|173
2|6.1 Case Illustration|173
2|6.2 The Basic Categories of the Standard of Judicial Proof|176
3|6.2.1 Objective Facts and Legal Facts|176
3|6.2.2 Objective Truth and Legal Truth|176
3|6.2.3 Absolute Truth and Relative Truth|179
3|6.2.4 Objective Truth Theory and Legal Truth Theory|180
2|6.3 The Aim and the Standard of Judicial Proof|182
3|6.3.1 The Aim of Judicial Proof is to Pursuit the Objective Truth|182
3|6.3.2 The Standard of Judicial Proof Belongs to the Legal Truth|183
3|6.3.3 The Standard of Judicial Proof is Not Equal to the Criterion for Testing the TruthID="Fn11"The Chinese word here is Zhenli, the fundamental truth in phylosophy. There was a well-known debate about the criterion for testing the truth in China in late 1970s. The conclusion of the debate was that practice should be the only criterion for testing the truth, which cleared the way for the “Reform and Open-up” policy in China.|184
3|6.3.4 The Unified Aim and the Diversified Standard in Judicial Proof|185
2|6.4 The System of the Standards of Judicial Proof|186
2|References|189
1|7 The Concept of Presumption|191
2|7.1 Case Illustration|191
2|7.2 The Concept of Presumption in English|192
2|7.3 The Concept of Presumption in Chinese|194
2|7.4 Three Progressive Criteria to Define the Concept of Presumption|199
3|7.4.1 Presumptions as Determinations of Unknown Facts or Disputed Facts|200
3|7.4.2 Presumptions as Indirect Fact Finding Based on Inference|201
3|7.4.3 Presumptions as Legal Rules of Fact Finding|203
2|References|206
1|8 The Categories of Presumption|207
2|8.1 Case Illustration|207
2|8.2 Categories of Presumption in Anglo-American Law of Evidence|209
3|8.2.1 Presumption of Law and Presumption of Fact|210
3|8.2.2 Rebuttable Presumption and Irrebuttable Presumption|213
3|8.2.3 Practical Categories of Presumption Without Classifications|216
2|8.3 Natural Presumption and Artificial Presumption|217
3|8.3.1 Definition of Natural Presumption|217
3|8.3.2 Definition of Artificial Presumption|218
3|8.3.3 Relationship Between Natural Presumption and Artificial Presumption|220
2|8.4 Categories of Presumption in Chinese Law of EvidenceID="Fn37"The data on Chinese law and legal interpretations were collated by Mao Shuling and Zhang Junzhou, Ph.D. students at the Law School of Renmin University of China from 2005 to 2009.|222
3|8.4.1 Description of Current Presumption Categories|222
3|8.4.2 Two Modes of Presumption Rules|224
3|8.4.3 Eight Paradigms of Presumption Rules|225
2|References|231
1|9 The Rules of Presumption|233
2|9.1 Case Illustration|233
2|9.2 The Structure of Presumption Rules|235
2|9.3 The Clarity and Fuzziness of Presumption Rules|236
2|9.4 The Conditions for Applying Presumption Rules|237
3|9.4.1 Sufficient Proving of Basic Facts for Presumption|238
3|9.4.2 Compliance of the Basic Facts with “Conditions” of Presumption Rules|238
3|9.4.3 No or Insufficient Contrary Evidence for Rebuttal|239
2|9.5 The Standardization of Presumption Rules|239
2|Reference|241
1|10 The Creation of Presumption Rules|242
2|10.1 Case Illustration|242
2|10.2 Conditions for Creating Presumption Rules|243
3|10.2.1 “Necessity” for Creating a Presumption Rule|245
3|10.2.2 “Possibility” for Creating a Presumption Rule|245
3|10.2.3 “Maturity” for Creating a Presumption Rule|246
2|10.3 Creating a Presumption Rule About Forced Confessions|247
2|10.4 Creating a Presumption Rule About Compulsory Recording of InterrogationsID="Fn3"The basic research for this part was done by Wang Aiping, Ph.D. student at the Law School of Renmin University of China from 2012 to 2015.|248
2|Reference|251
1|11 The Application of Presumption Rules|252
2|11.1 Case Illustration|252
2|11.2 Principles for Applying Presumption Rules|254
3|11.2.1 The Principle of Strict Application|255
3|11.2.2 The Principle of Fair Application|256
3|11.2.3 The Principle of Open Application|257
2|11.3 Procedures for Applying Presumption Rules|258
3|11.3.1 Initiation|258
3|11.3.2 Rebuttal|259
3|11.3.3 Ruling|259
2|11.4 Application of Presumption Rules and the Burden of Proof|260
3|11.4.1 The Burden of Proof in Application of Presumption Rules|260
3|11.4.2 The Burden of Proof or the Burden of Producing Evidence|261
3|11.4.3 Shift or Inversion of the Burden of Proof|265
2|11.5 Application of Presumption Rules and the Standard of Proof|269
3|11.5.1 The Standard of Proof with Presumption Rules|269
3|11.5.2 The Standard of Proof in the Application of Presumption Rules|271
2|References|275
1|12 The Proof of Wrongful Convictions|276
2|12.1 Case Illustration|276
2|12.2 The Ambiguousness of Facts and the Antagonism Between Parties in Redressing Wrongful Convictions|279
2|12.3 The Standard of Proof for Redressing Wrongful Convictions in USA|281
3|12.3.1 The Case of Robert McClendon|282
3|12.3.2 The Case of Joseph Abbitt|283
2|12.4 The Standard of Proof for Redressing Wrongful Convictions in UK|284
2|12.5 The Standard of Proof for Redressing Wrongful Convictions in Germany|288
2|12.6 The Restatement of the Standard of Proof for Redressing Wrongful Convictions in China|290
2|References|292
1|13 Erratum to: Methodology of Judicial Proof and Presumption|294
2|Erratum to:J. He, Methodology of Judicial Proof and Presumption, Masterpieces of Contemporary Jurisprudents in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8025-8|294
1|Bibliography|295
1|Contents|15
1|About the Author|16
1|Abbreviations|17
1|1 The Dilemma of Judicial Proof|18
2|1.1 Case Illustrations|18
3|1.1.1 The Case of Peng Yu, Nanjing|18
3|1.1.2 The Case of Xu Yunhe, Tianjin|20
3|1.1.3 Case of Wu Weiqing, Guangdong|21
2|1.2 Empirical Analysis of the Standard of Evidence in Criminal Cases|23
3|1.2.1 The Quality and Quantity of Evidence|24
3|1.2.2 The Quantity of Evidence in the Standard of Conviction|26
3|1.2.3 The Quality of Evidence in the Standard of Conviction|29
2|1.3 Case Study of Evidence Shortage in Wrongful Convictions|31
3|1.3.1 A Summary of the 45 Wrongful Convictions|31
3|1.3.2 Shortages in the Quantity of Evidence in Wrongful ConvictionsID="Fn26"This section discusses shortages in the quantity of evidence separately from shortages in the quality of evidence. When analysing shortages in quantity of evidence, we have not considered the impact of a shortage of quality on the evidence. Take two cases for example. In one, the necessary appraisal opinions are missing. When compared to the second case which does have appraisal opinions, we do not consider whether the quality of the second case’s appraisal opinion meets the standard of evidence.|33
3|1.3.3 Shortages in the Quality of Evidence in Wrongful Convictions|36
2|1.4 Regular Patterns of Evidence Shortage in Wrongful Convictions|40
3|1.4.1 Shortages of Evidence in Critical Links of Judicial Proof|40
3|1.4.2 Shortages of Quality in Testimonial Evidence|41
3|1.4.3 Shortages of Quantity in Physical Evidence|42
2|1.5 Judicial Rulings in Instances of Shortages of Evidence|43
2|References|47
1|2 The History of Judicial Proof|48
2|2.1 Case Illustration|48
2|2.2 Evolution of the Methods of Judicial Proof|52
3|2.2.1 Judicial Proof Mainly with the Evidence of Gods|52
3|2.2.2 Judicial Proof Mainly with the Testimonial Evidence|55
3|2.2.3 Judicial Proof Mainly with the Physical Evidence|57
2|2.3 Development of the System of Judicial Proof|59
3|2.3.1 The Trial by Gods as an Initial Step from Free Proof to Regulated Proof|59
3|2.3.2 The Legal Proof as a Second Try to Go from Free Proof to Regulated Proof|60
3|2.3.3 The Proof with Intimate Conviction as a Big Step to Go Back to Free Proof|63
3|2.3.4 The Regulated Proof Meets the Requirement of Judicial Proof|65
2|2.4 Improvement of the Judicial Proof System in China|68
3|2.4.1 The Basic Mode of Judicial Proof in China Is Free Proof|69
3|2.4.2 China Should Take the Road Towards Regulated Proof|70
3|2.4.3 The Quasi-system of Regulated Proof|72
2|References|77
1|3 The Methods of Judicial Proof|78
2|3.1 Case Illustration|78
2|3.2 Characteristics of Judicial Proof Methods|80
3|3.2.1 Retrograde Thinking|81
3|3.2.2 Adversary Thinking|82
3|3.2.3 Timely Thinking|82
2|3.3 Types of the Judicial Proof Methods|83
3|3.3.1 Direct and Indirect Proof Methods|83
3|3.3.2 Deductive and Inductive Proof Methods|84
3|3.3.3 Elemental and Systematic Proof Methods|85
2|3.4 Method of Individualization|86
3|3.4.1 Concept of Individualization|87
3|3.4.2 The Object of Individualization|89
3|3.4.3 The Basis of Individualization|91
3|3.4.4 The Scientific Foundation of Individualization|92
3|3.4.5 The General Method of Individualization|96
2|3.5 The Method of Logical Inference|99
3|3.5.1 The Concept of Inference|99
3|3.5.2 The Methods of Inference|100
3|3.5.3 The Truthfulness of Inference Premises|101
3|3.5.4 The Inference Premise and the Probative Force of Circumstantial Evidence|102
2|References|105
1|4 The Rules of Judicial Proof|106
2|4.1 Case Illustration|106
2|4.2 Introduction to Rules of Judicial Proof|109
3|4.2.1 Definition of Rules of Judicial Proof|110
3|4.2.2 Nature of Rules of Judicial Proof|111
3|4.2.3 Types of Rules of Judicial Proof|112
3|4.2.4 System of Rules of Judicial Proof|113
2|4.3 General Rules of Assessing Evidence|113
3|4.3.1 The Subjects of Assessing Evidence|114
3|4.3.2 The Objects of Assessing Evidence|114
3|4.3.3 The Contents of Assessing Evidence|115
3|4.3.4 The Modes of Assessing Evidence|117
2|4.4 Admission Rules of Evidence|122
3|4.4.1 General Rules of Admissibility|123
3|4.4.2 Exclusionary Rules of Evidence|123
3|4.4.3 The Rule of Limited Admissibility|131
2|4.5 Evaluation Rules of Evidence|135
3|4.5.1 General Standards for Evaluation of Evidence|135
3|4.5.2 The Rule of Corroborating Evidence|136
3|4.5.3 The Rule of Weight Priority|137
3|4.5.4 The Rule of Publicity of the Intimate Conviction in Free Evaluation|137
2|References|139
1|5 The Burden of Judicial Proof|140
2|5.1 Case Illustration|140
2|5.2 Categories of Judicial Proof|142
3|5.2.1 Self-oriented Proof and Others-Oriented Proof|142
3|5.2.2 Subjects and Objects of the Judicial Proof|143
3|5.2.3 Contents of the Object of Proof|146
2|5.3 Definition of the Burden of Proof|151
3|5.3.1 The Burden of Proof and the Burden of Producing Evidence|151
3|5.3.2 The Burden of Proof and Factual Claims|153
3|5.3.3 Equality and Partiality of Allocation of the Burden of Proof|154
2|5.4 Allocation Rules of the Burden of Proof in Criminal Proceedings|156
3|5.4.1 General Rules|156
3|5.4.2 Special Rules|158
3|5.4.3 Exemption of the Burden of Proof|165
2|5.5 Allocation Rules of Burden of Proof in Civil Proceedings|167
3|5.5.1 General Rules|167
3|5.5.2 The Burden of Proof in Cases Involving Contract Disputes|169
3|5.5.3 The Burden of Proof in Cases Involving Tort Disputes|170
3|5.5.4 Inverting the Burden of Proof in Civil Proceedings|170
2|References|172
1|6 The Standards of Judicial Proof|173
2|6.1 Case Illustration|173
2|6.2 The Basic Categories of the Standard of Judicial Proof|176
3|6.2.1 Objective Facts and Legal Facts|176
3|6.2.2 Objective Truth and Legal Truth|176
3|6.2.3 Absolute Truth and Relative Truth|179
3|6.2.4 Objective Truth Theory and Legal Truth Theory|180
2|6.3 The Aim and the Standard of Judicial Proof|182
3|6.3.1 The Aim of Judicial Proof is to Pursuit the Objective Truth|182
3|6.3.2 The Standard of Judicial Proof Belongs to the Legal Truth|183
3|6.3.3 The Standard of Judicial Proof is Not Equal to the Criterion for Testing the TruthID="Fn11"The Chinese word here is Zhenli, the fundamental truth in phylosophy. There was a well-known debate about the criterion for testing the truth in China in late 1970s. The conclusion of the debate was that practice should be the only criterion for testing the truth, which cleared the way for the “Reform and Open-up” policy in China.|184
3|6.3.4 The Unified Aim and the Diversified Standard in Judicial Proof|185
2|6.4 The System of the Standards of Judicial Proof|186
2|References|189
1|7 The Concept of Presumption|191
2|7.1 Case Illustration|191
2|7.2 The Concept of Presumption in English|192
2|7.3 The Concept of Presumption in Chinese|194
2|7.4 Three Progressive Criteria to Define the Concept of Presumption|199
3|7.4.1 Presumptions as Determinations of Unknown Facts or Disputed Facts|200
3|7.4.2 Presumptions as Indirect Fact Finding Based on Inference|201
3|7.4.3 Presumptions as Legal Rules of Fact Finding|203
2|References|206
1|8 The Categories of Presumption|207
2|8.1 Case Illustration|207
2|8.2 Categories of Presumption in Anglo-American Law of Evidence|209
3|8.2.1 Presumption of Law and Presumption of Fact|210
3|8.2.2 Rebuttable Presumption and Irrebuttable Presumption|213
3|8.2.3 Practical Categories of Presumption Without Classifications|216
2|8.3 Natural Presumption and Artificial Presumption|217
3|8.3.1 Definition of Natural Presumption|217
3|8.3.2 Definition of Artificial Presumption|218
3|8.3.3 Relationship Between Natural Presumption and Artificial Presumption|220
2|8.4 Categories of Presumption in Chinese Law of EvidenceID="Fn37"The data on Chinese law and legal interpretations were collated by Mao Shuling and Zhang Junzhou, Ph.D. students at the Law School of Renmin University of China from 2005 to 2009.|222
3|8.4.1 Description of Current Presumption Categories|222
3|8.4.2 Two Modes of Presumption Rules|224
3|8.4.3 Eight Paradigms of Presumption Rules|225
2|References|231
1|9 The Rules of Presumption|233
2|9.1 Case Illustration|233
2|9.2 The Structure of Presumption Rules|235
2|9.3 The Clarity and Fuzziness of Presumption Rules|236
2|9.4 The Conditions for Applying Presumption Rules|237
3|9.4.1 Sufficient Proving of Basic Facts for Presumption|238
3|9.4.2 Compliance of the Basic Facts with “Conditions” of Presumption Rules|238
3|9.4.3 No or Insufficient Contrary Evidence for Rebuttal|239
2|9.5 The Standardization of Presumption Rules|239
2|Reference|241
1|10 The Creation of Presumption Rules|242
2|10.1 Case Illustration|242
2|10.2 Conditions for Creating Presumption Rules|243
3|10.2.1 “Necessity” for Creating a Presumption Rule|245
3|10.2.2 “Possibility” for Creating a Presumption Rule|245
3|10.2.3 “Maturity” for Creating a Presumption Rule|246
2|10.3 Creating a Presumption Rule About Forced Confessions|247
2|10.4 Creating a Presumption Rule About Compulsory Recording of InterrogationsID="Fn3"The basic research for this part was done by Wang Aiping, Ph.D. student at the Law School of Renmin University of China from 2012 to 2015.|248
2|Reference|251
1|11 The Application of Presumption Rules|252
2|11.1 Case Illustration|252
2|11.2 Principles for Applying Presumption Rules|254
3|11.2.1 The Principle of Strict Application|255
3|11.2.2 The Principle of Fair Application|256
3|11.2.3 The Principle of Open Application|257
2|11.3 Procedures for Applying Presumption Rules|258
3|11.3.1 Initiation|258
3|11.3.2 Rebuttal|259
3|11.3.3 Ruling|259
2|11.4 Application of Presumption Rules and the Burden of Proof|260
3|11.4.1 The Burden of Proof in Application of Presumption Rules|260
3|11.4.2 The Burden of Proof or the Burden of Producing Evidence|261
3|11.4.3 Shift or Inversion of the Burden of Proof|265
2|11.5 Application of Presumption Rules and the Standard of Proof|269
3|11.5.1 The Standard of Proof with Presumption Rules|269
3|11.5.2 The Standard of Proof in the Application of Presumption Rules|271
2|References|275
1|12 The Proof of Wrongful Convictions|276
2|12.1 Case Illustration|276
2|12.2 The Ambiguousness of Facts and the Antagonism Between Parties in Redressing Wrongful Convictions|279
2|12.3 The Standard of Proof for Redressing Wrongful Convictions in USA|281
3|12.3.1 The Case of Robert McClendon|282
3|12.3.2 The Case of Joseph Abbitt|283
2|12.4 The Standard of Proof for Redressing Wrongful Convictions in UK|284
2|12.5 The Standard of Proof for Redressing Wrongful Convictions in Germany|288
2|12.6 The Restatement of the Standard of Proof for Redressing Wrongful Convictions in China|290
2|References|292
1|13 Erratum to: Methodology of Judicial Proof and Presumption|294
2|Erratum to:J. He, Methodology of Judicial Proof and Presumption, Masterpieces of Contemporary Jurisprudents in China, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-8025-8|294
1|Bibliography|295