517 * 361005 2012 D915.13 A 1674-1226 2014 05-0517-27 Discussions on proof of alibi. Lu Erqi, Law School of Xiamen University, Xiamen, Fujian Province 361005 Abstract It was just like a swan-imitating crow that set a defense obligation to the disclosure of alibi evidence established in the criminal procedure law in China in 2012. This renders a judgment possibly without legal regulation of common sense into a kind of procedural rules. "Alibi evidence" is directed to innocent, a kind of opinions as the whole, as well as the intermediary in the form. The concept develops the variety of forms and generic of evidence in theory. The rules have neither roots nor consequences. However, on one hand, under the background of official monopoly to evidence-collection in China, "alibi" defenses may not cause an ambush attack to the prosecution, also may be considered to be chicanery and unbelievable, and all forensic defense activities could be named as evidence when they were in conflux into a one-way proving activities by the prosecution; on the other hand, if the defendant did not fulfill his or her obligation to discovery of alibi evidence, although that cannot happen by defense instinct, there is no corresponding procedural punishment for the defendant. It is knowable that disclosure of the alibi evidence before the court in common law countries to seek the truth also could cause backfire. Therefore, proof of alibi in China only focused on the issue of evidence exchange to weaken the contest, and did not consider the premise of the defense ability of evidence collection and the responsibility of the prosecution idle at collecting evidence for objection to alibi. In this context, based on the principle of presumption of innocence, alibi defense is the right of the defendants and its early raising-up can prevent the endless errors made by the prosecution, and based on the principle of distribution of evidential burden, prosecutor bears an obligation to confirm alibi proof, with a requirement of positive verification and review. Key Words Alibi, Disclosure of evidence, Truth-seeking, Burden of proof, Self-incrimination * 2014B235 FLS(2014)A02
518 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 1 / 2 3 1 2 3 2012, 39 40 40 39 2012 40 41 1 8, 2012 453 2 539 3 1989 119~120
519 39 1996 1998 13 4 2012 5 1979 1996 2012 2012 40,, 6 4 4 2011 2012 2013 2 5 < < >, 2012 33 6
520 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 2012 55 ( ) 51, 2003 7 1 2012 48 1 2, 8 7 2003 12 8 6 61 2006 11 17
521 2 17 18 9 2012 48 2 1 48 1 48 3 53 2 2 2 9 2013 1
522 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 1 10 2, 11 1873 2014 7 10 4 2012 113~114 11 X 2008 2002
1 2014 59 --2014-04-17 2 2014 69 --2014-06-27 3 2013 234 --2014-04-01 4 2014 48 --2014-05-16 5 2013 01191 --2014-02-24 6 2014 00013 --2014-02- 20 7 2014 11 --2014-02-26 523 5 2 1 5 1 1 7 6 1 1 2
524 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 ' 12 13 14 12 2005 5 13 2009 1 14 2013
525 6 7 40 15 2013 8 22 8 10 4 2014 8 22,,,, 2013 8 16 17 15, http://nd.oeeee.com/xzt/column/zy/201303/t20130304_1423046.shtml, 2014 9 25 16 2013 8 31 17
526 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 18, 2003 8 6 10 H X 2003 8 6 X A U X, 10 10 19 2014 8 27 1. X A X B X 4 C X D X X 2. 3. X ppt 20 18 17 19 2008 185~203 20 2012 10 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/ blog_6592426a0102uzga.html 2014 10 20
527 195 3 21 22 23 24 25 1 21 2014 8 27 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/ blog_52f113450102v0vb.html 2014 10 20 22 (2014-08-23) http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/ blog_56fc0caa0102v079.html 2014 10 20 23 21 24 1989 150 25 : 2006 7~8
528 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 26 2 : 5 5 27, 28 1796 4 27 1789 1797! 29 26 25 112~114 2010 2009 93 27 28, 2013 61 29 120
529 DNA DNA 30 1 15 10 10 6 2 1988 13 31 3 1981 52 (Charles Chatman) 27 4 1988 8 20 7 22 6 ( Roger Dean Gillispie) 25 32 30 2012 31 Jim Trainum, I took a false confession-so don't tell me it doesn't happen, ACLU of Northern California, www.calitics. com/showdiary.do? diaryid =3831; also, Steven A. Drizin, Thomas Grisso, Gisli H. Gudjonsson, Richard A. Leo, and Allison D. Redlich, "Police-induced Confessions: Risk Faclors and Recommendations", Publisbed online, p. 69. 163 32 30 212
530 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 33 1 50 54 52 2 34 33 28 62 34 John Henry Wigmore, Evidence, 1367 (3d ed.). 1940, at 29.
531 35 1996 2012 36 37 L. H. 35 : 2013 390~391 36 2008 79 37 2012 65 72
532 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 1967 11 38 1996 Code of Practice 1 2 3 4 39 defense statement 40 1 2 3 alibi 14 41 1 2 42 43 38 L. H. 36 39 2009 384 40 387 41 42 43 38 125
533 ( ), 20,,,,,,, 1938 9 16,,, 50~60, 44 (Arthur T. Vanderbilt),,,, (Learned Hand) (Abraham Goldstein),, 45, 1970 Williams v. Florida 46 1974 12.1 12.2 12.3 44 3 1999 45 Brennan, The Criminal Prosecution: Sporting Event or Quest for Truth? 1963 Wash. U. L. Q. 279, 290~292, 1963. 46 (1) (2) (3) :,,, Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 90 S. Ct, 1893, 26 L. Ed. 2d. 446(1970). 234
534 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 1975 12.1 1 10 2 10 10 3 47 48 49 40 1 2 3 4 50 47 44 234 48 Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U. S. 470, 93 S. Ct. 2208. 37 L. Ed. 2d 82 (1973). 49 39 394~395 50 R H J,, 2003 1022
535 ( ) 51 alibi 52 53 adequacy timeliness 54 affirmative 55 51 35 390~391 52 40 153~154 53 153~154 54 55 167
536 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 56 57 ( ) 49 186 187 56 38 133 57 35 176
537 189 190 191 58 59 92 60 61 58 2010 217 59 168 60 ( ) 2003 304 61 611
538 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 62 1 2 3 4 63 2 179 141 1 2 3 4 5 64 364 ( ) 65 62 58 612 63 34 2012 64 2 2011 220 65 2011 303~304
539 1 2 66 67 ( ) 68 66 1991 4 67 2002 491 68 2011 65
540 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 50 35 42 69 70 4 71 69 2002 367~368. 70 2003 121 71 1998 5 15
541 72 73 118 36 37 74 50 75 76 72 2008 145 73 74 5 19 24 75 : 2007 4 76 66 15
542 Evidence Science Vol.22 No.5 2014 77 78 90 41 45.56% 34 56 79 4 28 3 ) ( 1 ) ( 2 ) (1 ) 39 43.3% 80 12.1 12.1 81 1 77 65 15 78 75 2011 36 79 2011 59 80 69 81 50 1022
543 2 2012 49 2012 186 3 2014-10-10 2014-10-20