The procedure of defines the volume of evidence in the court of first instance and the system of their research

O. Pylypchuk
{"title":"The procedure of defines the volume of evidence in the court of first instance and the system of their research","authors":"O. Pylypchuk","doi":"10.17721/2413-5372.2019.4/174-184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article focuses on the problem of defines the volume of evidence to be research and the system of their researching in the court of first instance including those evidence that arising in connection with changing dated 04.10/2019 in the Criminal procedural Code of Ukraine.\n\nThe purpose of the article is to analyze the legislation and propose ways to improve current legislation in order to optimize procedures aimed at planning the research of evidence in the court of first instance.\n\nThe current the Criminal procedural Code of Ukraine assumes that the amount of evidence to be research, the court receives not in the form of protocols, of proprietary evidence or other materials, and with a application speech, which is proclaimed by the parties at the beginning of the court session. Introductory speech is the first information that builds a court views about evidences, through which the parties intend to substantiate the substitution of their legal positions concerning the prosecution, their affiliation, admissibility and sufficiency, order of their research into Court hearings, as well as the content of other legal positions of the parties in this proceeding. During the proclamation of the application speeches, the parties cite the amount of evidence on which their position is built, after which the court must investigate the evidence submitted by them. To construct a structural and logical study of evidence, a necessary plan for such a study and establish the evidence study procedure.\n\nUnder the concept of 'evidence research ' procedure, it is proposed to understand a certain sequence and order of of actions that will depend on a particular criminal proceeding. In the study of evidence, the court should consider the specifics of the proceeding; Specifics of the evidence submitted by the Parties; Focus how long it takes to study the submitted evidence. If a party raises a question about inadmissibility evidence, such doubt should be in writing decorated with appropriate evidence. A party that opposes such a written application shall refute such a statement by submitting the court its arguments. \n\nIn the article analyses questions about inadmissibility evidence and making a propose to introduction procedure to recognition evidences how inadmissibility. In the presence of a substantiated position of rejection in the acceptance of evidence, the party may in writing argue about the recognition of such evidence invalid.","PeriodicalId":399656,"journal":{"name":"Herald of criminal justice","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Herald of criminal justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-5372.2019.4/174-184","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The article focuses on the problem of defines the volume of evidence to be research and the system of their researching in the court of first instance including those evidence that arising in connection with changing dated 04.10/2019 in the Criminal procedural Code of Ukraine. The purpose of the article is to analyze the legislation and propose ways to improve current legislation in order to optimize procedures aimed at planning the research of evidence in the court of first instance. The current the Criminal procedural Code of Ukraine assumes that the amount of evidence to be research, the court receives not in the form of protocols, of proprietary evidence or other materials, and with a application speech, which is proclaimed by the parties at the beginning of the court session. Introductory speech is the first information that builds a court views about evidences, through which the parties intend to substantiate the substitution of their legal positions concerning the prosecution, their affiliation, admissibility and sufficiency, order of their research into Court hearings, as well as the content of other legal positions of the parties in this proceeding. During the proclamation of the application speeches, the parties cite the amount of evidence on which their position is built, after which the court must investigate the evidence submitted by them. To construct a structural and logical study of evidence, a necessary plan for such a study and establish the evidence study procedure. Under the concept of 'evidence research ' procedure, it is proposed to understand a certain sequence and order of of actions that will depend on a particular criminal proceeding. In the study of evidence, the court should consider the specifics of the proceeding; Specifics of the evidence submitted by the Parties; Focus how long it takes to study the submitted evidence. If a party raises a question about inadmissibility evidence, such doubt should be in writing decorated with appropriate evidence. A party that opposes such a written application shall refute such a statement by submitting the court its arguments. In the article analyses questions about inadmissibility evidence and making a propose to introduction procedure to recognition evidences how inadmissibility. In the presence of a substantiated position of rejection in the acceptance of evidence, the party may in writing argue about the recognition of such evidence invalid.
诉讼程序规定了第一审法院的证据数量及其研究制度
本文侧重于确定要研究的证据数量及其在一审法院研究的系统的问题,包括与乌克兰刑事诉讼法2019年4月10日变更有关的证据。本文的目的是对我国初审法院的证据研究进行立法分析,并提出完善现行立法的途径,以优化程序。现行的《乌克兰刑事诉讼法》假定,法院接受的证据数量不是议定书、专有证据或其他材料的形式,而是由当事各方在开庭时宣布的申请发言。导言是构建法庭证据观点的首要信息,当事人意图通过它来证明其对控方的法律立场的替代、其从属关系、可采性和充分性、其对法庭听证的研究顺序,以及当事人在本诉讼中其他法律立场的内容。在宣布申请发言时,当事人陈述其立场所依据的证据数量,之后法院必须对当事人提交的证据进行调查。构建证据研究的结构性和逻辑性,是证据研究的必要计划和证据研究程序的建立。在“证据研究”程序的概念下,建议理解依赖于特定刑事诉讼的行动的特定顺序和顺序。在研究证据时,法院应考虑诉讼的具体情况;双方提交证据的具体情况;重点是研究提交的证据需要多长时间。当事人对证据不可采信提出疑问的,应当以书面形式提出,并附有适当的证据。对书面申请提出异议的,应当向法院提出抗辩。文章分析了证据不可采信的问题,并提出了引入程序来认定证据如何不可采信的建议。当事人在接受证据时,有确凿证据表明拒绝接受证据的,可以书面主张认定该证据无效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信