—以 493 份刑事裁判文书为样本

蔡艺生

（西南政法大学刑事侦查学院 重庆，401120）

【摘 要】2018 年刑事诉讼法修改以来，讯问录音录像证据运用的司法样态全貌与效果如何，基本没有相关实证调查。据 493 份裁判文书统计分析表明，讯问录音录像证据运用次数逐年递增，但区域差异明显；“应当型”案件的录音录像证据运用远低于“可以型”案件；讯问录音录像随案移送率极低；讯问录音录像的证据形式多样；讯问录音录像的证据功能多样；基于讯问录音录像而质疑讯问行为非法的理由多样；多数讯问录音录像的证据审查为形式审查。所显示问题是，讯问录音录像的相关规范仍显粗疏，存在诸多模糊空间；讯问录音录像证据运用实践导向明显，不符合立法预期；部分法官审查讯问录音录像的相关经验和能力不足，影响权威性。改进思路在于，强化讯问录音录像制度的刚性建设，减少侦查机关的相关自由裁量权；确立以“不利推定原则”为主，“权衡排除”为辅的裁断方式；规范讯问录音录像证据审查的释法说理。

【关键词】讯问录音录像；证据能力；证据功能；证据审查；释法说理

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2020）04-0401-17

An empirical study on the use of audio and video recordings of interrogation. Cai Yisheng, Tang Yunyang.Southwest University of Political Science and Law, College of Criminal Investigation, Chongqing, 401120,China.

【Abstract】Since the amendment of the criminal procedure law taking effect in 2018, there is basically no empirical study investigating the overall judicial pattern and effect of the application of the law governing the audio and video recordings of interrogation. According to the statistical analysis of 493 judicial documents, the use of audio and video recordings of interrogation increases year by year, but the use presents significant geography disparity; The use of audio and video recordings in cases where the use is mandatorily required is far less than cases non-mandatorily required; The rate of transferring audio and video recordings of interrogation along with case file is remarkably low; Audio and video recordings of interrogation are taken in various forms; The function of evidence of audio and video recording of interrogation is diverse; The reasons for questioning the illegality of interrogation based on audio and video recordings of interrogation are various; Most of the review of audio and video recordings of interrogation is merely in name. The problems revealed by this study include, the standards of conducting audio and video recordings of interrogation are still unclear and a vast grey area remains; The practice orientation of audio and video recordings of interrogation is obvious, which does not meet the legislative expectation; Some judges lack experience and ability in reviewing audio and video recordings of interrogation, which affects their authority. The proposed improvement methods are as follows, enforcing a rigid system to regulate interrogation recording and video recordings and undercutting the discretion of investigation department, enforcing the adverse inference rule in major play and putting the balancing test approach to exclusion in supplement; standardizing the explanation and reasoning of the use and examination of audio and video recordings of interrogation.

【Key Words】Audio and video recordings of interrogation; Evidence competency; Evidence functions;Evidence examination; Explanation and reasoning