Neglected Surprise Adjudication:Procedural Regulation of Changes in the Construction of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
Evidence is the basis of conviction and sentencing.Surprise adjudication in conviction and sen-tencing essentially points to illegal changes in the construction of evidence;compared with the former,the latter has not received attention from legislative norms and theoretical research.The identification cri-teria for evidence construction surprise adjudication are hierarchical,containing extrajudicial decisions and changes in adjuducation within the same scope of public prosecution facts.Generally speaking,there are three basic types:improper reinforcement of evidence construction,change of disengagement from contention points,and repeated evaluation.The criterion for whether the"change procedure"should be practiced for discrepancies in the construction of evidence is whether it affects the exercise of the defend-ant's right to defense.The generating logic of evidence construction surprise adjudication is complex,in-cluding but not limited to authoritarian view of authority,special structure of the Criminal Procedure Law,insufficient preconditions for prevention,and the lack of procedural sanctions.The prevention of court ev-idence construction surprise adjudication should focus on the clear control of procedural boundaries,which should be conducted mainly from the four dimensions of regulatory method selection,establishment of notification and defense procedures,improvement of rights protection procedures,and clarification of procedural sanctions consequences.
evidence constructionsurprise adjudicationnotification and defenseto the detriment of the defendantprogram boundaries
NETL
NSTL
万方数据
维普
