Editorial of dossier “Admissibility of Evidence in Criminal Process. Between the Establishment of the Truth, Human Rights and the Efficiency of Proceedings”

Karolina Kremens; Wojciech Jasiński

doi:10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.537

Autori

Karolina Kremens University of Wrocław http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2132-2645
Wojciech Jasiński University of Wrocław http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7427-1474

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.537

Parole chiave:

admissibility of evidence, rights of individual, plea-bargaining, digital evidence, illegally obtained evidence.

Abstract

The rules on the admissibility of evidence secure accurate fact-finding as a prerequisite for the correct application of substantive criminal law and proper operation of the criminal justice system in society. But the search for the truth must be limited in order to take into account other important values, among which human rights hold a central place. The quest for a fair balance between the effective fight against crime and respect for individual rights constantly remains in the center of heated discussion. However, there are two other factors that strongly influence the evidentiary rules, creating an environment where finding the truth becomes more complicated than ever before. The popularity of the disposition of cases out of trial and the impact of technology and science, both interrelated and focused on the efficiency of the criminal justice system, paradoxically make the quest for the truth easier and faster, but also more prone to errors. Moreover, the new technologies allowing evidence gathering have become a vital threat to the right to privacy. Finding solutions to these challenges necessitates dialogue including various stakeholders and free of the penal populism that has recently dominated the legal discourse.

Downloads

La data di download non è ancora disponibile.

Biografie autore

Karolina Kremens, University of Wrocław

PhD in Law from the University of Wrocław (Poland) and LL.M. from the University of Ottawa (Canada). Assistant Professor at the Department of Criminal Procedure at the Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics (University of Wrocław, Poland).
Wojciech Jasiński, University of Wrocław

Habilitation in Law and PhD in Law from the University of Wrocław (Poland). Assistant Professor at the Department of Criminal Procedure at the Faculty of Law, Administration and Economics (University of Wrocław, Poland)

Riferimenti bibliografici

AMBOS Kai. International Criminal Procedure: “Adversarial”, “Inquisitorial” or “Mixed”? International Criminal Law Review, vol. 3, pp. 1-37, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1163/156753603767877084

ASHWORTH Andrew. Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights. Criminal Law Review, vol. 3, pp. 723-735, 1977.

ASHWORTH Andrew. Exploring the integrity principle in evidence and procedure En: MIRFIELD Paul, SMITH Roger. Essays for Colin Tapper, Oxford–New York: Lexis-Nexis, 2003.

ASHWORTH Andrew; REDMAYNE Mike. The Criminal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

BACHMAIER WINTER Lorena. Spain: The Constitutional Court’s Move from Categorical Exclusion to Limited Balancing. En: THAMAN Stephen C. (ed.) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Springer: Dordrecht–Heidelberg–New York–London, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_9

BORGERS Matthias J.; STEVENS Lonneke. The Netherlands: Statutory Balancing and a Choice of Remedies. En: THAMAN Stephen C. (ed.) Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law. Springer: Dordrecht–Heidelberg–New York–London, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5348-8_8

BRADLEY Craig M.; HOFFMNN Joseph L. Public Perception, Justice and the “Search for the Truth” in Criminal Cases. Southern California Law Review, vol. 69, pp. 1267-1302, 1996.

CAIANELLO Michele. Criminal Process faced with the Challenges of Scientific and Technological Development, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 2019, vol. 27. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-02704001

CAIANELLO Michele. Criminal Process faced with the Challenges of Scientific and Technological Development. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, vol. 27, pp. 265-289, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-02704001

CHAU Peter. Excluding Integrity? Revisiting Non-Consequentialist Justifications for Excluding Improperly Obtained Evidence in Criminal Trials. En: ROBERTS Paul, HUNTER Jill, YOUNG Simon NM., DIXON David (eds.). The Integrity of Criminal Process. From Theory into Practice, Oxford–Portland: Hart Publishing, 2016. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474201407.ch-011

CHOO Andrew L-T. The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and Criminal Justice. Oxford-Portland: Oxford University Press, 2013.

DAMAŠKA Mirjan. The jury and the law of evidence: real and imagined interconnections. Law, Probability and Risk, vol. 5, issue 3-4, pp. 255-265, 2006. https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgm009

DELMAS_MARTY Mireille. Reflections on the “Hybridisation” of Criminal Procedure. En: JACKSON John, LANGER Máximo, TILLERS Peter (eds.). Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context. Essays in honour of Professor Mirjan Damaška, Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing, 2008. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472564528.ch-013

FOWLER Joanna E.N.; Noyes Janet M. From dialing to tapping: University students report on mobile phone use. Procedia Manufacturing, vol. 3, pp. 4716-4723, 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.568

George DERY III M., MEEHAN Kevin. A New Digital Divide? Considering the Implications of Riley v. California’s Warrant Mandate for Cell Phone Searches. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change vol. 18 (4), 2015.

GLESS Sabine. AI in the Courtroom: A Comparative Analysis of Machine Evidence in Criminal Trials, Georgetown Journal of International Law vol. 51, 2020.

GUERRINI Christi J.; ROBINSON Jill O.; PETERSEN Devan, McGUIRE Amy L. Should police have access to genetic genealogy databases? Capturing the Golden State Killer and other criminals using a controversial new forensic technique, PLOS Biology, 2 October 2018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2006906

HILBERT Jim. The Disappointing History of Science in the Courtroom: Frye, Daubert, and the Ongoing Crisis of “Junk Science” in Criminal Trials. Oklahoma Law Review, vol. 71, 2019.

HO Hock Lai. A Philosophy of Evidence Law. Justice in the Search for Truth, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

HODGSON Jacqueline S. The Metamorphosis of Criminal Justice. A Comparative Account, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020.

JACKSON John; ROBERTS Paul. Beyond Common Law Evidence: Reimagining and Reinvigorating, Evidence Law as Forensic Science. En: BROWN Darryl K., TURNER Jenia J.; WEISSER Bettina (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190659837.013.40

JEHLE Jörg-Martin, WADE Marianne. Coping with Overloaded Criminal Justice Systems. The Rise of Prosecutorial Power in Europe, Berlin: Springer 2006.

KEEN Peter Carmichael. Tempered Adversariality: The Judicial Role and Trial Theory in the International Criminal Tribunals. Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 17, pp. 767-814, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156504002225

KEHL Danielle; GUO Priscilla; KESSLER Samuel. Algorithms in the Criminal Justice System: Assessing the Use of Risk Assessments in Sentencing. Responsive Communities Initiative, Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society, Harvard Law School, July 2017.

KREMENS Karolina. Dowody osobowe w międzynarodowym postępowaniu karnym. Toruń: TNOiK, 2010.

KREMENS Karolina. Powers of the Prosecutor in Criminal Investigation. A Comparative Perspective. New York: Routledge, 2021 (forthcoming).

KUSAK Martyna, Mutual admissibility of evidence in criminal matters in the EU. A study of telephone tapping and house search, Antwerpen: Maklu, 2016.

LANGER Máximo. Plea-bargaining, Conviction Without Trial and the Global Administratization of Criminal Convictions, Annual Review of Criminology, 2021, vol. 4. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092255

LASAGNI Giulia, Tackling phone searches in Italy and the United States: Proposals for a technological rethinking of procedural rights and freedoms, New Journal of European Criminal Law, vol. 9 (3), 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284418798053

MACLIN Tracey. The Supreme Court and Fourth Amendment’s Exclusionary Rule. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199795475.001.0001

MENASHE Doron, A Critical Analysis of the Online Court, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, vol. 39 (4), 2018.

MITSILEGAS Valsamis. EU Criminal Law. Oxford: Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing, 2009.

MUNDIS Daryl A., From ‘Common Law’ Towards ‘Civil Law’: The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Leiden Journal of International Law, vol. 14, pp. 367-382, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0922156501000188

NELLIS Mike, The Electronic Monitoring of Offenders in England and Wales: Recent Developments and Future Prospects, The British Journal of Criminology, vol. 31 (2), 1991.

NELLIS Mike, Understanding the Electronic Monitoring of Offenders in Europe: Expansion, Regulation and Prospects, Crime, Law and Social Change, vol. 62, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-014-9540-8

ROBERTS Paul; ZUCKERMAN Adrian, Criminal Evidence, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.

RUGGIERI Francesca; MARCOLINI Stefano. Italy. En: LIGETI Katalin (ed.). Toward a Prosecution for the European Union, Volume 1. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford–Portland: Hart Publishing, 2013.

RYAN Andrea. Towards a System of European Criminal Justice. The Problem of Admissibility of Evidence, New York: Routledge 2014. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315770031

SACHAROFF Laurent. The Fourth Amendment Inventory as a Check on Digital Searches, Iowa Law Review vol. 105, pp. 1643-1699, 2020.

SKOLNIK Terry. Improving the Current Law of Warrantless Cellphone Searches after R v. Fearon, Revue Juridique Thémis de l’Université de Montréal, vol. 49, 2015.

SOUSA William H., COLDREN James R.; RODRIGUEZ Denise Jr., BRAGA Anthony A. Research on Body Worn Cameras: Meeting the Challenges of Police Operations, Program Implementation, and Randomized Controlled Trial Designs, Police Quarterly, vol. 19 (3), 2016. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611116658595

SPENCER John R. Evidence. En: DELMAS-MARTY Mireille; SPENCER John R. European Criminal Procedures, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

TURNER Jenia Iontcheva, WEIGEND Thomas. The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview. In: GLESS Sabine, RICHTER Thomas (eds.). Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules. Cham: Springer, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2_8

VANDERMEERSCH Damien, Droit continental vs. droit anglo-américain: quells enseignements pour le droit belge de la procédure pénale, Revue de Droit Penal et de Criminologie, 2001, pp. 467-531.

WALTOŚ Stanisław; HOFMAŃSKI Piotr. Proces karny. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer, 2016.

WEIGEND Thomas. Germany. En: LIGETI Katalin (ed.). Toward a Prosecution for the European Union, Volume 1. A Comparative Analysis, Oxford–Portland: Hart Publishing, 2013.

WEIGEND, Thomas. Should We Search for the Truth, and Who Should Do it? North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, vol. XXXVI, pp. 389-415, 2011.