【摘要】受制于传统证据法“三性”(合法性、客观性、关联性)理论的惯性思维，又困惑于英美法系和大陆法系的两难抉择，非法证据与瑕疵证据的界限混乱。借鉴证据禁止理论，非法证据和瑕疵证据是关于证据使用禁止的问题，属于证据能力的范畴，二者的界限应当以程序正义和实体真实两个面向作为实质解释的基准，进而分别引申出四个判断规则—人权规则、痛苦规则、真实性规则、自愿性规则。在具体判断方法上，遵循从形式到实质阶层递进的逻辑顺序，坚持“形式—实质”阶层式鉴别法，先从形式上判断证据取得在来源、过程、结果三个方面是否违反法律法规，如果不违反法律法规，则不存在非法证据排除问题；如果违反相关法律法规，先判定属于瑕疵证据，再进一步根据人权规则、痛苦规则、真实性规则、自愿性规则进行实质判断是否属于非法证据。

【关键词】证据禁止；证据能力；非法证据；瑕疵证据

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226(2023)04-0405-12

The boundary between illegally obtained evidence and faulty evidence.Li Yong.Nanjing People's Procuratorate,Nanjing,210004.

【Abstract】Influenced by the inertial thinking created by the traditional theory of"three characteristics"(legality,objectivity,relevance),and the dilemma between common law system and civil law system,the boundary between illegally obtained evidence and faulty evidence is blurring.Referring to the prohibition theory,illegally obtainned evidence and faulty evidence are issues of evidence prohibition.Such issue belongs to the category of evidence admissibility.The boundary between the two should be interpreted on the basis of procedural justice and substantive veracity,from which derives four judgment rules–the rule of human rights,the rule of pain,the rule of authenticity,and the rule of voluntariness.Specifically,the evaluation should follow the logical sequence from form to substance,which is a hierarchical evaluation method of"form-substance".The first step is to evaluate,from the aspect of evidence form,whether there is any violation of law and regulations in the evidence collection in terms of the source,process and result.If there is no violation of law,there is no issue of excluding illegally obtained evidence.If there is any violation of relevant lawßand regulations,such evidence should be deemed as faulty evidence.Then the substantive evaluation,which is led by the rule of human rights,the rule of pain,the rule of authenticity,and the rule of voluntariness,should be engaged to determine whether such evidence is illegally obtained evidence.

【Key Words】Evidence prohibition；Evidence admissibility；Illegally obtained evidence；Faulty evidence