Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.473Parole chiave:
exclusionary rules, comparative criminal procedure, rules of evidence, admissibility of evidence.Abstract
This text presents two models of elimination of undesired evidence that operate in common law and continental law states. It analyses the mechanisms of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial which can be defined as the procedural instruments (solutions) adopted in a given model of criminal trial that allow for assessment and eventual elimination of inadmissible evidence as deemed to be undesired in the process of fact-finding. On the basis of a „model approach” it will be shown how such mechanisms of elimination (or blocking) of undesired evidence function in the United States and England, Germany, France, Poland and Italy. Also the stage of elimination will be analysed, as well as the type of procedure of applying a blockade. It will be explained in what ways the atomistic and holistic assessment of evidence work and what consequences they have. The last part of the text will show how the rationale for elimination of evidence in the form of illegality, unreliability or relevance, may result in various consequences depending on the seriousness of violation of law. These elements of analysis will allow to examine whether the continental and common law models of elimination of undesired evidence are coherent and effective and whether they allow for achieving the assumed goal of eliminating of undesired evidence. In the conclusions it will be shown that the final arbiter of admissibility of evidence in both procedural models is a judge and how this solution allows for weighting legally protected interests in every case. The argumentation presented in the article will also lead to an observation that in the continental model of elimination of undesired evidence it cannot be said that there is a full-fledged “mechanism” of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial.
Downloads
Riferimenti bibliografici
AMELUNG, Knut. Zasady rządzące zakazami wykorzystania dowodów. In: Współczesne problemy procesu karnego i wymiaru sprawiedliwości. Księga ku czci Profesora Kazimierza Marszała. HOFMAŃSKI, Piotr; ZGRYZEK, Kazimierz (eds.). Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego, 2003.
ASHWORTH, Andrew J. Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights. Criminal Law Review, n. 3, 1977.
BACHMAIER, Lorena. Rights and Methods to Challenge Evidence and Witnesses in Civil Law Jurisdictions. In: Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process. BROWN, Darryl et al. (eds.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. http://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.43
BENEDICT, Jerome. Le sort des preuves illégales dans le procés pénal. Lausanne: Editions Pro Schola, 1994.
BILLIS, Emmanouil. Die Rolle des Richters im adversatorischen und im inquisitorischen Beweisverfahren, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 2015.
CAMMACK, Mark E. The United States: The Rise and Fall of the Constitutional Exclusionary Rule. In: Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. THAMAN, Stephen. (ed.). Dordrecht - Heidelberg - New York – London: Springer, 2013.
CHOO, Andrew. England and Wales: Fair Trial Analysis and the Presumed Admissibility of Physical Evidence. In: Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. THAMAN, Stephen (ed.). Dordrecht - Heidelberg - New York – London: Springer, 2013.
CHOO, Andrew; NASH Susan. Improperly Obtained Evidence in the Commonwealth: Lessons for England and Wales? The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, n. 11, 2007.
CHOO, Andrew; NASH Susan. What's the Matter with S. 78? Criminal Law Review, n. 12, 1999.
DAMAŠKA, Mirjam. Evidence Law Adrift, Yale: Yale University Press, 1997.
DAMAŠKA, Mirjam. Evidentiary barriers to conviction and two models of criminal procedure: a comparative study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, n. 121, 1973.
DAMAŠKA, Mirjam. Free Proof and Its Detractors. The American Journal of Comparative Law, n. 3(43), 1995.
DAMAŠKA, Mirjam. On Structures of Authority and Comparative Criminal Procedure. Yale Law Journal, n. 84, 1974-1975.
DAMAŠKA, Mirjam. The Faces of Justice and State Authority. New Haven–London: Yale University Press, 1986.
DARSONVILLE, Audrey. Les limites au principe de la liberté de la preuve pour les parties, Dalloz. Actualité, https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/breve/limites-au-principe-de-liberte-de-preuve-pour-parties#.X2SD7IswhPY (access 18.09.2020).
DENNIS, Ian. H. Reconstructing the Law of Criminal Evidence. Current Legal Problems. n. 42, 1989.
EISENBERG, Ulrich. Beweisrecht der StPO. Spezialkommentar. 10. Auflage. C. H. Beck 2017.
FULLER, Lon, L. The Adversary System. In: Talks On American Law. BERMAN, Harold (ed.). New York: Vintage Books, 1971.
GALLIGAN, Denis, James. Discretionary Powers, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986.
GARÉ, Thierry. L'admission de la preuve illégale: la Chambre criminelle persiste et signe, Recueil Dalloz 2000.
GIUDICELLI-DELAGE, Geneviève. Les transformations de l’administration de la preuve pénale. Perspectives comparées : Allemagne, Belgique, Canada, Espagne, Etats-Unis, France, Italie, Portugal, Royaume-Uni. Archives de politique criminelle, n. 26(1), 2004. https://doi.org/10.3917/apc.026.0139
GLENN, Patrick, H. Legal Traditions of the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014.
GLESS, Sabine. Germany: Balancing Truth Against Protected Constitutional Interests., In: Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. THAMAN, Stephen (ed.). Dordrecht - Heidelberg - New York – London: Springer 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_5
GLESS, Sabine. Das Verhältnis von Beweiserhebungs-und Beweisverwertungsverboten und das Prinzip »Iocus regit actum. In: Festschrift für Gerald Grünwald, SAMSON, Erich; DENCKER, Friedrich; FRISCH, Peter; FRISTER, Helmut; REIß, Wolfram (eds.). Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1999.
GLESS, Sabine, MACULA, Laura. Exclusionary Rules—Is It Timefor Change? In: Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial?: A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules, GLESS, Sabine; RICHTER, Thomas (eds.). Basel: Springer 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_12
GREVLING, Katharine. Fairness and the Exclusion of Evidence under s. 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Law Quarterly Review, n. 113, 1997.
GRÜNWALD, Gerald. Das Beweisrecht der Strafprozeßordnung, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1993.
HANNIBAL, Martin; MOUNTFORD, Lisa. Criminal Litigation 2019-2020 (Legal Practice Course Manuals), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
HO, Hock Lai. Exclusion of Wrongfully Obtained Evidence: A Comparative Analysis. In: Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process. BROWN, Darryl et al. (eds.)., Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
HO, Hock Lai. The Fair Trial Rationale for ExcludingWrongfully Obtained Evidence. In: Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial?: A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules, GLESS, Sabine; RICHTER, Thomas (eds.). Basel: Springer 2019.
ILLUMINATI, Giulio. Italy: Statutory Nullities and Non-usability., In: Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. THAMAN Stephen (ed.). Dordrecht Heidelberg New York London: Springer, 2013.
ILLUMINATI, Giulio. The Frustrated Turn to Adversarial Procedure in Italy (Italian Criminal Procedure Code of 1988). Washington University Global Studies Law Review 2005.
JACKSON, John, D.; SUMMERS Sarah, J. The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.
JASIŃSKI, Wojciech. Nielegalnie uzyskane dowody w procesie karnym. W poszukiwaniu optymalnego rozwiązania. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2019.
KERN, Eduard; ROXIN, Claus. Strafverfahrensrecht: ein Studienbuch. München: Beck, 1987.
KLEINKNECHT, Theodor. Die Beweisverbote im Strafprozess. Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, n. 19, 1966.
KREMENS, Karolina, The authority to order search in a comparative perspective: a call for judicial oversight, Rev. Bras. de Direito Processual Penal, n. 6(3), 2020. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i3.412
KWIATKOWSKI, Zbigniew. Model zakazów dowodowych de lege lata w polskim procesie karnym. In: Nowe spojrzenie na model zakazów dowodowych w procesie karnym. SKORUPKA, Jerzy (ed.). Warszawa 2014.
LAFAVE, Wayne, ISRAEL, Jerold, KING, Nancy, KERR, Orin. Criminal Procedure. St. Paul: West Academic Publishing, 2009.
LANGER, Maximo. From Legal Transplants to Legal Translations: The Globalization of Plea Bargaining and the Americanization Thesis in Criminal Procedure’, Harvard International Law Journal. n. 1(45), 2004.
MARAFIOTI, Luca. Italian Criminal Procedure: A System Caught Between Two Traditions. In: Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context: Essays in Honour of Prof. Mirjan Damaška. JACKSON, John; LANGER, Maximo (eds.). Hart Publishing 2008.
MERLE, Roger; VITU André. Traité de droit criminel. 2. Procédure pénale. Paris: Cujas, 1989.
MIRFIELD, Peter. Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
MOLINA, Emmanuel. Réflexion critique sur l’évolution paradoxale de la liberté de la preuve des infractions en droit français contemporain., Revue internationale de droit comparé, n. 54(1), 2002.
NIJBOER, Johannes, F. Methods of Investigations and Exclusion of Evidence – a Comparative and Interdisciplinary Perspective. In: Beweisverbote in Ländern der EU und vergleichbaren Rechtsordnungen. HÖPFEL, Frank, HUBER, Barbara (eds.). Freiburg in Breisgau: Max-Planck-Institut, 1999.
ORMEROD, David; BIRCH Diane. The evolution of the discretionary exclusion of evidence. Criminal Law Review, n. 9, 2004.
PATTENDEN, Rosemary. Pre-verdict Judicial Fact-finding in Criminal Trials with Juries, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, n. 29(1), 2009.
PIZZI, William. Trials Without Truth: Why Our System of Criminal Trials Has Become an Expe,nsive Failure and What We Need to Do to Rebuild. New York: NYU Press, 1998.
PRADEL, Jean. La preuve en procédure pénale comparée. Rapport general, Revue International de Droit Penal 1992.
PRADEL, Jean. Procedural Nullities and Exclusion. In: Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. THAMAN Stephen (ed.). Dordrecht - Heidelberg - New York – London: Springer, 2013.
PRADEL, Jean. Procédure pénale, Paris: Cujas, 2014.
ROBERTS, Paul; ZUCKERMAN, Adrian. Criminal Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.
ROBERTS, Paul. Faces of Justice Adrift? Damaška’s Comparative Method and the Future of Common Law Evidence. In: Crime, Procedure and Evidence in A Comparative and International Context – Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaška. JACKSON, John; LANGER, Maximo (eds.). Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008.
ROGALL, Klaus. Grundsatzfragen der Beweisverbote. In: Beweisverbote in Ländern der EU und vergleichbaren Rechtsordnungen. HÖPFEL Frank; HUBER Barbara (eds.). Freiburg in Breisgau: Max-Planck-Institut, 1999.
ROGALL, Klaus. Beweisverbote im System des deutschen und des amerikanischen Strafverfahrens-rechts. In: Zur Theorie und Systematik des Strafprozessrechts: Symposium zu Ehren von Hans-Joachim Rudolphi WOLTER, Jürgen (ed.). Berlin: Luchterhand, 1995.
ROSS, Jacqueline. Do Rules of Evidence Apply (Only) in the Courtroom? Deceptive Interrogation in the United States and Germany. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, n. 3(28), 2008.
RYAN, Andrea. Towards a System of European Criminal Justice. The problem of admissibility of evidence, London/New York: Routledge, 2014.
SCHRÖDER, Svenja. Beweisverwertungsverbote und die Hypothese rechtmässiger Beweiserlangung im Strafprozess, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, 1992.
SKORUPKA, Jerzy., Eliminowanie z procesu karnego dowodów uzyskanych w sposób sprzeczny z prawem. In: Dowody. Vol. VIII(2), System Prawa Karnego Procesowego SKORUPKA, Jerzy (ed.). Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer 2019.
SOLODOV, Denis; SOLODOV, Ilia. Legal safeguards against involuntary criminal confessions in Poland and Russia, Rev. Bras. de Direito Processual Penal, 2020, v. 6(3). https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i3.368
STEINBORN, Sławomir. Aksjologiczne uwarunkowania ograniczeń w dochodzeniu do prawdy materialnej w procesie karnym. In: Pojęcie, miejsce i znaczenie prawdy materialnej w polskim procesie karnym: materiały Wrocławskiego Seminarium karnoprocesowego. SKORUPKA, Jerzy; KREMENS, Karolina (ed.). Wrocław 2013.
ŚWIECKI, Dariusz. Przeprowadzanie dowodów na rozprawie głównej. Wybrane zagadnienia. In: Proces karny w dobie przemian. Przebieg postępowania, STEINBORN, Sławomir, WOŹNIEWSKI, Krzysztof (ed.). Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo UG, 2018.
THAMAN, Stephen. Balancing Truth Against Human Rights: A Theory of Modern Exclusionary Rules. In: Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law THAMAN Stephen (ed.). Dordrecht - Heidelberg - New York – London: Springer, 2013.
THIBAUT, John; WALKER, Lauren; LIND, E. Allan. Adversary presentation and bias in legal decisionmaking. Harvard Law Review. n. 86, 1972–1973. https://doi.org/10.2307/1339895
TRÜG, Gerson. Lösungskonvergenzen trotz Systemdivergenzen im deutschen und US-amerikanischen Strafverfahren. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003.
TURNER, Jenia I. Regulating Interrogations and Excluding Confessions in the United States: Balancing Individual Rightsand the Search for the Truth. In: Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial?: A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules, GLESS, Sabine; RICHTER Thomas (eds.). Basel: Springer, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_493
TURNER, Jenia I.; WEIGEND, Thomas, The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview. In: Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial?: A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules, GLESS, Sabine; RICHTER, Thomas (eds.). Basel: Springer, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_8
TWINNING, William. Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore. (Jurists: Profiles in Legal Theory). London: Stanford University Press, 1985.
VAN CAENEGEM, William. New trends in illegal evidence in criminal procedure: general report – common law, Paper presented at XIII World Congress of Procedural law, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. https://research.bond.edu.au/en/publications/new-trends-in-illegal-evidence-in-criminal-procedure-general-repo (access: 18.11.2020).
WAINE, Lydia; MAY, Radmila; POWLES, Steven. May on criminal evidence. Sweet & Maxwel 2015.
WALTOŚ, Stanisław. Rola sądu w postępowaniu przygotowawczym. Problemy Praworządności, n. 1, 1971.
WĄSEK-WIADEREK, Małgorzata., Model zakazów dowodowych z perspektywy Konwencji i orzecznictwa ETPCz., In: Nowe spojrzenie na model zakazów dowodowych w procesie karnym. SKORUPKA, Jerzy (ed.). Warszawa 2015.
WEBER, Max. On Law in Economy and Society. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1954.
WEIGEND, Thomas. Germany. In: Toward a Prosecution for the European Union. Vol I. LIGETI, Katalin (ed.), Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013.
WEIGEND, Thomas. The Potential to Secure a Fair Trial Through Evidence Exclusion: A German Perspective. In: Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial?: A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules, GLESS, Sabine; RICHTER, Thomas (eds.). Basel: Springer, 2019.
WILIŃSKI, Paweł. Konstytucyjny standard legalności dowodu w procesie karnym In: Proces karny w dobie przemian. Zagadnienia ogólne. STEINBORN, Sławomir; WOŹNIEWSKI, Krzysztof (eds.). Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo UG, 2018.
WILIŃSKI, Paweł. Pojęcie rzetelnego procesu karnego. In: Rzetelny proces karny w orzecznictwie sądów polskich i międzynarodowych. WILIŃSKI, Paweł (ed.). Warszawa: Scholar, 2011.
WORRALL, John L. Criminal Procedure. From First Contact to Appeal. New York: Pearson Education 2007.
ZAGRODNIK, Jarosław. Model interakcji postępowania przygotowawczego oraz postępowania głównego w procesie karnym., Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer 2013.
Dowloads
Pubblicato
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
Come citare
