检察官证明责任研究

【作者】 王雄飞；

【导师】 徐静村；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 刑事诉讼法学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 全文的结构分为:绪论;第一章:检察官证明责任的基本定位;第二章:法律推定——检察官证明责任的内容质度;第三章:被告人证明责任与检察官证明责任内容的消长互动;第四章:证明对象——检察官证明责任的范围量度;第五章:被告人陈述形态与检察官证明责任范围的增减互动;第六章:证明标准——检察官证明责任的履行尺度;第七章:刑事证明标准层次性与检察官证明责任履行的难易互动;第八章、完善我国检察官证明责任制度的若干思考;结论。论文的主线是围绕检察官证明责任的基本概念、三个维度、三个互动和完善建议四大逻辑思路展开和布局。其中,三个维度是证明责任的静态存在,表明了证明责任与相关证明概念的必然联系;三个互动是证明责任的动态存在,表明证明责任在法律实践中的复杂类型;三个维度是三个互动的基础根据,三个互动是三个维度的变化形态。如果将法律推定、证明对象和证明标准这三个维度比喻成检察官证明责任的三个“支点”,那么,这三个“支点”的运动变化就形成了检察官证明责任在内容、范围和履行上的动态模型,即绝对型和相对型证明责任;基本型、收缩型和扩张型证明责任;严格型、趋弱型和轻易型证明责任。在绪论中,阐述了检察官证明责任的研究对象,研究现状、研究意义和研究方法。第一章是论文的基础性部分,集中阐述了检察官证明责任的概念、制度背景、性质特征、结构形态以及与相关概念的比较。本章第一节在分析证明责任涉及的七个基本要素的基础上提出证明责任的概念是:证明主体提出主张(指控)与抗辩产生待证事实以后;在基于法律司法解释规定(显性或隐性规定,明示或默示推定)而确定证明分配的前提下;对证明对象提出证据进行证明并达到一定的证明标准以说服事实裁判者做出有利于自己的判决,以及不能说服事实裁判者出现事实真伪不明时必然承担的败诉风险。本章第二节介绍了两大法系证明责任的概念和内容,提出不同的诉讼模式对检察官证明责任的影响是明显的,即大陆法系证明责任的静态性、形式性和模糊性,而英美法系证明责任则相对地呈现出动态性、实质性和明确性。本章第三节从研究证明责任性质的范式转变入手,认为证明责任的性质是证明主体为了避免在诉讼结束时因案件事实真伪不明而必然承担的败诉风险,同时基于对案件胜诉的期待和追求,源于法律规定而必须承担的法定内在负担,并进一步总结了证明责任的双重特征。文中重点分析论证了证明责任的内在双元素结构和外在渐进式形态,尤其是对作为证明责任内在结构的行为责任和结果责任之间,对作为证明责任外在形态的提供证据责任和彻底说服责任(又可直接称之为证明责任)之间进行了深入的比较分析,得出了很多重要的结论,如无罪推定要求检察官承担证明责任的形态只能是完全形态即彻底说服责任,亦即司法实践中的诉点形成责任和疑点排除责任;而被告人承担证明责任的形态只能是初步形态即提供证据责任,亦即司法实践中的疑点形成责任。文中进一步以结构和形态的视角分析了两大法系对证明责任的类型划分,即英美法系的提出证据责任和说服责任以及大陆法系的主观证明责任和客观证明责任的分类,体现了证明责任的双元素结构和渐进式形态,不但不相互矛盾,反而相得益彰,可以相互借鉴;但是,将两大法系对证明责任的分类作简单的等同化处理在逻辑上是行不通的,实质上是混淆了证明责任内在结构和外在形态的区别。本章第四节对证明责任和证明必要;检察官证明责任和警察查明责任以及法官判明责任之间进行了深入的比较。证明责任与证明必要的联系和区别是本章的重要论点,文中归纳了两者的十大区别;而在论述检察官证明责任和警察的查明职责以及法官的判明职责的联系和区别时,既指出了三者同属广义证明概念(包括他向证明和自向证明)的范畴,具有职权型证明责任的共性,又强调检察官证明责任作为狭义证明概念(严格意义上的他向证明)的范畴具有的鲜明个性。第二章论述了法律推定是检察官证明责任的内容质度,是论文的核心部分,也是检察官证明责任本体建构部分。本章第一节首先研究了推定的各种涵义,并提出推定的基础是经验法则。然后集中分析了事实推定与法律推定的概念特征及其相互关系,指出事实推定的实质是推理或推论;法律推定源于事实推定又高于事实推定,是在事实推定的基础上渗入了法律价值和政策需要,从而将事实推定的单纯经验逻辑上升为法律逻辑;法律推定和事实推定具有泾渭分明的区别也有千丝万缕的联系,事实推定作为一个法律术语有其存在的必要性。本节进一步阐述了推定的其它分类和比较:区别了可反驳的推定和不可反驳的推定,指出不可反驳的推定实际上是假借推定之名的单纯实体法规范;区分了强制性推定和允许性推定,指出允许性推定是处于事实推定与法律推定之间的模糊地带,实际上也是具有法律推定之形而不具有法律推定之实的事实推定;区分了直接推定和推论推定,指出直接推定是对法律推定中逻辑过程的简化和省略,即简化和省略了基础事实及其推理形式;区分了不可推定的法律推定和法律拟制,指出两者的前提事实和结论事实的逻辑关系不同,前者具有逻辑上的相似性属于立法上的假定,而后者在逻辑上根本不具有相似性属于立法上的虚构。本章第二节重点论述了推定对于证明之意义,在此节论文提出了一个重要的观点:事实推定产生证明必要、法律推定产生证明责任,并详细分析了证明责任和证明必要具体产生的“三步曲”步骤,从而得出法律推定(无罪推定)是证明责任(检察官证明责任)的内容质度的结论。并从法律推定和事实推定的角度对证明责任(包括提供证据责任)和证明必要是否可以移转这个学术界争论的重大问题进行了分析,认为证明责任具有彻底性和法定性在诉讼过程中不可移转,而提供证据责任和证明必要可以进行形式意义上的转移,即证明行为所指向的争点事实在双方当事人之间形式上的移转。本章第三节对检察官证明责任的产生原理进行了分析。首先全面阐述了“谁主张、谁举证”的各种涵义、对于证明责任分配的基础作用及其背后隐含的法律推定,提出“谁主张、谁举证”是两大法系各种诉讼证明责任分配的本源和基础;同时也指出其存在的历史局限性,因为简单浅陋和概括抽象的分配原则已经不能适应证明对象日益复杂化带来的新挑战,“谁主张、谁举证”例外或倒置的情形不断地出现。本节认为,无罪推定是检察官证明责任产生的根本原则,并具体提出无罪推定要求检察官承担先行的、终局的和总体的证明责任,亦即先行履行责任、终局履行责任和总体履行责任。文中提出,无罪推定并不是刑事证明责任分配唯一和绝对的原则,而是存在着例外分配的情形;被告人承担提供证据责任不但没有违反无罪推定根本原则而与之冲突,相反恰恰是建立在只有检察官才是刑事证明责任的唯一主体的基础之上,因而完全可以经得起无罪推定这个宪政原则的检验。本节还对检察官客观义务及其与检察官证明责任之间关系进行分析,指出检察官客观义务虽然在一定程度上对检察官证明责任产生了双重影响,即弱化了检察官证明责任中的结果责任,又强化了检察官证明责任中的行为责任,但是从根本上说,检察官客观义务与检察官证明责任是两个不同范畴的概念,它们之间并没有必然的联系,也没有根本的冲突,而是统一于检察官这个主体之上,各自在不同领域发挥不同的作用。从世界范围来看,检察官的客观义务与证明责任呈现出并行不悖、共存共生的发展态势。第三章论述了被告人证明责任与检察官证明责任内容此消彼长的互动关系,也就是从绝对型检察官证明责任发展到相对型检察官证明责任。本章第一节首先介绍了两大法系关于证明责任分配的基本理论并分析认为,由于两大法系的法学方法论和法律传统的不同,大陆法系总体上是规范说,具有标准明确,便于司法操作等优点;英美法系总体上是反规范说的综合考量说,具有灵活性大,司法对应性强的优点。实际上,两大法系的证明责任分配已呈相互融合之势:大陆法系采用法律要件分类说为主、利益衡量说为辅的分配原则;英美法系国家则采取了利益衡量说为主,类似法律要件分类说为辅的分配原则。本节进一步指出,在刑事诉讼中,由于无罪推定的这个宪政原则的影响,使得刑事证明责任分配出现了与民事证明责任分配不同的特质,一是无罪推定原则使得规范说很难有生存发展之空间,无罪推定导致了基本上一边倒的检察官承担证明责任的分配格局;二是无罪推定原则使得利益衡量说仅仅拥有例外的空间,因为最大的利益衡量或实质性原则就是无罪推定。本节提出了被告人承担证明责任的必要性,即最大限度的打击犯罪之需要;最大限度的发现真实之需要;最大限度的提高效率之需要;最大限度的平衡利益之需要。文中同时提出被告人承担证明责任的相对性,即内容上是特殊罪名的部分要件事实;性质上是初步形态的提供证据责任;程序上是在检察官先行履行和终局履行证明责任之间的中间履行,相对性表明了被告人承担刑事证明责任的严格性、比例性和合理限度。本节最后分析了被告人承担证明责任的法律形式,认为总体上有两个层面的形式:第一层面是以法律司法解释中有无直接规定当事人证明责任分配来划分,分为显性证明责任和隐性证明责任;第二层面是以法律司法解释中有无直接出现“推定”一词的概念分为明示法律推定和默示法律推定。总体来说,散见于实体法和程序法中的隐性证明责任和默示法律推定是被告人承担证明责任的主要存在形式,可谓看不见摸不着,需要研究者和法律工作者进行深入分析后才能得出和适用。本章第二节从对部分犯罪要件事实的证明责任、对合法辩护理由和犯罪阻却事由的证明责任和对程序事实的证明责任三个方面列举介绍两大法系刑事法律中课以被告人证明责任的各种情形。文章第三节在严格界定我国刑事法中不利被告人的法律推定,即排除了诸多非严格意义的法律推定的基础上,从分析我国刑法典刑事诉讼法典和有关司法解释背后的默示法律推定入手,归纳列举了被告人承担隐性证明责任的若干情形。同时,基于研究的自然延伸,本节还对不利被告人的学理型推定进行简要地介绍和分析。第四章论述了证明对象是检察官证明责任的范围量度。本章第一节对检察官证明对象进行界定,在对两大法系和我国检察官证明对象范围的各种学说,如案件事实说,争点事实说,要件事实说等进行了介绍和分析后,提出检察官证明对象包括静态的诉点事实和动态的争点事实。诉点事实就是指检察官提出指控而被告人在自白、沉默以及消极否认的情况下的指控事实,即是在起诉书中列明的被告人犯罪事实;争点事实就是检察官提出指控而被告人抗辩(积极否认,提出新的事实主张)的情况下的争议事实,其范围包括对诉点事实的拓展(提出新的主张)和对隐含在诉点事实背后的推定事实的激活(反驳和推翻)。提出诉点事实和争点事实的具体划分的意义是,诉点事实之中实际上暗含了对特定案件事实的事实推定,亦即减免了检察官对这些推定事实的证明,而仅仅需要证明基础事实即可获得推定事实的证明;而在争点事实中,即在被告人抗辩的情况下,诉点事实中暗含的事实推定可能会“浮出水面”,成为检察官证明对象的一部分而必须承担证明责任。诉点事实之中案件事实相互的事实推定静态地缩小了检察官证明对象的范围(与被告人陈述形态对检察官证明对象的动态影响相区别),使检察官在诉讼证明开始之前就部分地卸除了证明责任。本章第二节从证明对象是证明责任的内容量度和证明责任实现证明对象的目标任务这两个方面论述了证明对象和证明责任的关系。文中认为,证明对象明确了控辩双方承担证明责任的范围,证明对象限定了法官承担判明责任的范围,因此证明对象是证明对象的范围量度。本章第三节重点阐述了两大法系犯罪构成理论及其对检察官证明对象的影响,指出要件事实之间的推定缩小了证明对象的范围,使检察官部分卸除证明责任,也就是大陆法系的违法性阻却事由和有责性阻却事由、英美法系的正当辩护理由和可得宽恕辩护理由都是推定要件,都不是检察官需要直接证明的证明对象,即无需检察官直接承担证明责任。文中进一步对我国犯罪构成要件理论进行分析,认为我国犯罪构成要件中也客观上存在基础要件和推定要件,检察官对推定要件,即犯罪客体要件以及部分犯罪主体要件(如无精神病)实际上不直接纳入证明对象,不直接承担证明责任。本章还分析了程序事实的特点和其应当作为证明对象的必要性,同时论证了证据事实也是证明对象,其中有关证明证据能力合法性的事实可归于程序事实,有关强化证据主体可信性的事实可归于实体事实。本节最后阐述了无需证明的事实,包括司法认知和推定的事实。第五章论述了被告人陈述形态与检察官证明责任范围增减的互动关系,从而形成了基本型检察官证明责任、收缩型检察官证明责任和扩张型检察官证明责任。本章第一节论述了被告人沉默和消极否认的概念及其对检察官证明责任的影响,提出被告人沉默和消极否认既没有改变检察官证明责任的对象范围,又没有改变检察官证明责任的履行繁简,以此形成了基本型检察官证明责任。本章第二节论述了被告人自白的概念和自白任意性规则、自白补强规则,提出被告人自白一方面免除和减少了检察官证明责任的对象范围,另一方面免除和简化了检察官证明责任的履行程序,以此形成了收缩型检察官证明责任。关于对检察官证明责任对象范围的免除和减少,如英美法系国家的“有罪答辩”程序基于当事人处分原则对检察官证明对象的全部免除;大陆法系国家虽然受自白补强规则的限制没有完全免除检察官的证明对象,但还是在部分事实上如主观犯意方面明确规定减少了检察官的证明对象范围,而且更为重要的是,在司法实践中被告人自白事实上减少了检察官在建构指控证据体系时的证据范围。关于对检察官证明责任履行程序的免除和简化,前者如英美法系的“有罪答辩”程序和我国刑事诉讼中的简易程序,事实上免除了检察官证明责任的履行程序;后者如我国刑事诉讼中的普通程序简化审,事实上简化了检察官证明责任的履行程序。出于对我国刑事诉讼的效率价值考虑和对英美法系当事人处分原则的吸收借鉴,本节还提出完善我国被告人自白对检察官证明责任的减免效力:一是明确被告人自白对检察官证明责任对象范围的减少,二是扩大被告人自白对检察官证明责任履行程序的减免。本章第三节论述了被告人抗辩的具体种类和证明性质,提出被告人抗辩既增加了检察官证明责任的对象范围,又增加检察官证明责任的履行程序,以此形成了扩张型检察官证明责任。本节特别指出了被告人抗辩的两种证明性质,即基于证明责任的抗辩和基于证明必要的抗辩,并对此进行了具体的比较。第六章论述了证明标准是检察官证明责任的履行尺度。本章第一节介绍了证明标准的概念和分类,分析比较了证明标准与相关概念的区别和联系。文中认为,严格意义上的证明标准,就是指检察官或被告人提供证据对证明对象加以证明所要达到的准则和标尺,而从广义上的证明标准(包括自向证明)来看,证明标准包括多个诉讼程序多个诉讼主体的证明要求:即程序上的立案标准、拘留标准、逮捕标准、侦查终结标准、提起公诉标准、定罪量刑标准;主体上的警察查明标准、检察官证明标准和法官判明标准,又可称为查证标准、举证标准和审证标准、本文为区别概念,将程序上的各项证明标准称为证据标准,保留在主体意义上使用的证明标准概念。本节还介绍了证明标准的延伸概念,即释明、疏明(稀明);严格证明与自由证明;表见证明。在国外证明理论中,这些概念基于各种客观证明需要而存在,但其证明程度都明显低于正常的证明标准。本章第二节探讨了自由心证和证明标准的关系,在介绍了自由心证的概念和历史发展的基础上,文中指出两者的辩证关系,即一方面,证明标准属于自由心证的范畴,而另一方面,证明标准又是对自由心证的规范制约。本章第三节论述了证明标准和证明责任之间密切的联系,即证明责任是证明标准的前提根据,而证明标准则是证明责任的履行尺度和调节手段。文中指出,证明标准的高低对证明责任的调节作用体现在两个方面,一是直接调节,通过提高或降低证明标准引起证明责任中行为责任的移转,从而直接调节了证明责任的对象范围和履行繁简。二是间接调节,通过提高或降低证明标准使一方当事人的证明责任得到履行或得不到履行,从而在事实上而不是在法律上发生了证明责任的中的结果责任的“移转”,从而间接地调节了证明责任在不同当事人之间的分配效果。第七章论述了刑事证明责任层次性与检察官证明责任履行难易的互动关系,相应形成了严格型证明责任、趋弱型证明责任和轻易型证明责任。本章第一节从证明主体差异、证明性质差异、证明对象差异和案件性质差异四个角度论证了刑事证明标准具有层次性,又进一步阐述了两大法系刑事证明标准的层次性。在此基础上,本章第二节提出了引进盖然性理论,建构我国检察官证明标准的层次形态。根据有关刑事证明标准层次性的理论探讨和专家学者的论证成果,结合我国司法实践,本文提出三个层次形态:第一层次——确定无疑标准,具有99%以上盖然性,体现了严格型证明责任,是检察官证明标准的主体形态;第二层次——确信排疑标准,具有80%以上盖然性,体现了趋弱型证明责任,是检察官证明标准的主要辅助形态:第三层次——优势可信标准,具有50%以上盖然性,体现了轻易型证明责任,是检察官证明标准的次要辅助形态。以上三个层次形态的建构理由和适用范围,本节也详细作了论证和划分。针对学界关于检察官证明标准和法官判明标准也就是提起公诉证据标准和定罪量刑证据标准是否一致问题,本节从反证的角度论证如果标准不一致将会导致检察官根本无法履行证明责任;将会导致检察官证明行为的混乱和滥用;同时指出检察官证明标准和法官判明标准的一致性并不意味着事实认定的结果完全相同。本章第三节以案例解读的形式进一步论证了证明标准的层次形态与检察官证明责任履行难易互动的客观存在和具体表现。第八章是论文的对策建议部分,主要是在分析我国检察官证明责任制度存在不足的基础上,提出完善的思考和建议。本章第一节指出取消被告人如实供述义务,即被告人没有自证其罪的义务是完善我国检察官证明责任制度的基本前提。论文首先阐述了反对自证其罪是刑事诉讼的基本国际准则。进而认为如实供述义务与证明责任制度存在着根本性的冲突,表现在如实供述义务否定了刑事证明责任的基本前提;扭曲了刑事证明责任的基本性质;破坏了刑事证明责任的分配原则。并进一步论述了取消被告人如实供述义务对于真正承认被告人诉讼主体地位、真正建立证明责任制度、真正遏制刑讯逼供现象所产生的积极意义。本章第二节提出确立科学的证明责任分配原理和分配内容,是完善我国检察官证明责任制度的根本要求。文中对两大法系刑事证明责任分配理论作简要分析和对我国刑事证明责任分配的若干观点作简要述评之后,提出我国应当确立以无罪推定为原则、不利推定为例外的证明责任分配原理。本节分析了我国被告人承担证明责任的现实条件,认为应当严格限制被告人承担证明责任的范围,限制的方式和途径包括慎重创制被告人承担的显性证明责任、慎重建立不利于被告人的法律推定;同时鼓励被告人充分行使和积极履行证明必要以实现有效辩护。本节提出在特殊情况下公正而适当地减轻检察官的证明责任即确立对被告人不利推定的利益衡量的具体规则,包括要件例外规则、事实独近规则、常态损害规则和社会危害规则,并列举论证了完善被告人承担提供证据责任的几种具体情形,即对于违法性阻却事由、精神病辩护理由、持有型犯罪中的主观明知、腐败型犯罪中的部分主观和客观要件应当要求被告人承担提供证据责任。同时进一步明确了被告人承担证明责任的性质是初步形态的提供证据责任;提供证据责任在程序上是中间履行,具有明显的后发优势。本章第三节论述了在司法实践中两个涉及我国检察官证明责任的具体问题,提出要明确我国检察官对程序性事实尤其是在非法证据排除过程中承担证明责任;提出了合理确定检察官证明责任与法官庭外调查权的界限,也就是确立法官庭外调查权应遵循的三项原则,即立场的公正性、内容的补充性和法律的限定性。在结论中,总结归纳论文的主要观点和在学术创新,同时指出论文中存在的不足和进一步改进的方向。更多还原

【Abstract】 The structure of the article is divided into: Introduction, Chapter l:The basic position of the burden of proof of the prosecutor .Chapter 2: the presumption of law - the existent character dimension of the burden of proof of the prosecutor, Chapter 3: the fluctuant interaction between the burden of proof of the defendant and the burden of proof of the prosecutor; Chapter 4: the object of proof - the range of dimension of the burden of proof of the prosecutor, Chapter 5: the changing interaction between the form of the defendant’s statement and the burden of proof of the prosecutor, Chapter 6: Standard of proof-the scale of the burden of proof of the prosecutor, Chapter 7: the interaction between the level of the criminal standards of proof and the burden of proof of the prosecutor, Chapter 8: a number of thinking about the improvement of the system of the burden of proof of the prosecutor in our country ,and the conclusions. The major clue is around the basic conception of burden of proof of the prosecutor ,the three dimensions, the three interactions and the improvement suggestions . The three dimensions are the static contents of the burden of the prosecutor which indicate the inevitable relationship of the burden of proof and the related proof conception. The three interactions are dynamic contents which indicate the complex type of the burden of proof in the legal practice. The three dimensions are the basis of the three interactions and the three interactions are the changing form of the three dimensions.In the introduction, the object, the research reality, the significance and the method of the study of the burden of the prosecutors are elaborated.Chapter 1 is the basic part of the article, where the concept of the burden of proof of the prosecutor, the background of the system, the characteristics of the nature and the structure, as well as the comparison of the related concepts are intently elaborated. The first section of this charter put forwards the concept of ’burden of proof after seven basic elements are analyzed. After the accused person gives his allegation on the accused fact, based on the judicial interpretation which allocates the responsibility of proof, the man who is being accused gives evidence to proof that his is an innocent person or takes the risk of non-persuasion. The second section of this chapter introduces the concept of burden of proof and its content differences in civil law system and common law system. The burden of proof on both legal systems is different. The third section of this chapter analyzes burden of proof from the aspect of model type. In this section, the essential of burden of proof is to avoid the risk of lose when the really false is unclear and to pursuit the winning of the case. This section gives a further summary on the duel characters of burden of proof and reasons on its gradually advanced shape. Especially, this section analyses the behavior and outcome responsibility from the inter-structure of ’burden of proof’. It tells us several more important conclusions, such as innocent presumption requests that the responsibility of prosecutor can only be a complete persuasive responsibility, and the burden of proof of defendant can only be a doubtful point establishing responsibility. From the aspect of type and structure, this section shows that duel characters and the gradually advanced shape do not conflict each other at all, on the contrary, it complements each other. It is not logical to mix up the different concepts of burden of proof between two legal systems and simply gives the difference the same treatment. If we do so, we essentially confused the inner structure and the outer type of the burden of proof. The fourth section of this chapter gives a further analysis on the difference between the burden of proof and the necessity of proof, the burden of proof of prosecutor, the responsibility of detection of the police and the judgment responsibility of the judges. The connection and differences between the burden of proof and the necessity of proof are the main point of this chapter. Ten differences are summarized in this section. On discussing the connection and difference between the burden of proof of prosecutor, the responsibility of detection of the police and the judgment responsibility of the judges, the article emphasize that they have commonness on authority responsibility and get bright individuality on the broad sense and narrow sense of prove conception.The second chapter is the main segment of this article. It constructs the burden of proof ofprosecutor. It argues that the essence dimension of burden of proof of prosecutor is thepresumption of law. The first section of this chapter investigates various definition ofpresumption at first. It argues that the basic of presumption is experience rules. Afterwards, theauthor analyses the characters, definition and connection between fact inference andpresumption of law. They have prominent distinction and have countless connections. Thepresumption of law is higher than the fact inference, but the legal reasoning is totally based onthe real fact. The fact inference is influenced by the value of law and the need of public policeand shifts from the simple experience logic to the legal logic. The second section of this chapterdiscusses the meaning of presumption. The author present that the fact inference generates thenecessity of proof, and the presumption of law generates the burden of proof. It analysesthree-step process of the generation of burden of proof and the necessity of proof and furtherpoints out that innocent presumption is the essence dimension of burden of proof. In author’spoint of view, the burden of proof of prosecutor is engrained and statutory. It can not betranslated in the process of prosecution. Point of issue in proving behaviors, evidential burdenand necessity of proof can translate formally. Burden of proof lies upon him who affirms, nothim who denies. It is the origin and foundation of responsibility allocation of both civil law andcommon law system. But it has history limitation as well. The changing world and changingcomplexity of our lives give it significant challenges. Sometimes, it may "shift" to the defendantif he/she raises a factual issue in defense. The author thinks that innocent presumption is thefundamental principle of burden of proof. The prosecutor himself should take pre-implementation, final implementation and collective implementation responsibility. Innocent presumption is not the unique and absolute principle of allocation of burden of proof in criminal process. On the contrary, it has exceptions. Only the prosecutor is the unique core of burden of proof in criminal, and this principle can survive in the test of principle of constitution. Analyzing from basic view, the burden of proof and the objective obligations of prosecutor is the concept in two different areas. They are not necessarily link, and there was no fundamental conflict between them as well. They both connect to the prosecutor and play different roles in different areas. From worldwide, the burden of proof and the objective obligations of prosecutor are coexistence and develop in symbiotic way.In the third chapter, the author argues that there is an inversed interactive relation between the burden of proof of the accused and the prosecutor. In this chapter, the prosecutor’s burden of proof has developed from an absolute one to a relative one. In the first section of this chapter, the author introduces different concepts of burden of proof in both civil law system and common law system. In civil law system, burden of proof is standard and explicit. In common law system, burden of proof is comprehensive adjustable and flexible. The author further pointed out that, in criminal prosecution, influenced by the constitutional principle that presumption of innocence, the assignment of criminal burden of proof is different from the civil burden of proof assignment in some special characteristics. Finally, the author analyzed the legal forms in which the accused could undertake the burden of proof, and believed that there are generally two forms in two different levels. In Section III, the author summed up and listed all kinds of situations in which the accused undertake implied responsibilities in the criminal law in our country. And all the conclusions are concluded from analyzing the implied presumption of law behind our criminal code, code of criminal procedure and some related legal interpretations.In Chapter 4, the author dissertates that the object of proof is the dimension of the range of prosecutors’ burden of proof. In Section I of this chapter prosecutor’s object of proof has been defined. After introducing and analyzing various theories on the range of prosecutors’ object of proof, the author argues that object of proof contains static facts of prosecution point and dynamic facts of point of issue. The facts of prosecution points listed in the indictment. It is the accused fact in defendant’s confession, keeping silence and passive negativity. In the Section II of this chapter, the author has expounded the relationship between object of proof and burden of proof from two aspects. The writer expatiates that object of proof not only defined the scope of burden of proof between prosecutor and defendant, but also defined the range of the judgment of the court. Thus object of proof is the dimension to the range of burden of proof. The third section of this chapter expounded mainly about the theory of criminal constitution in the civil and common law systems and analyzed the influence on the object of proof. The writer further analyzed the theory of criminal constitution in our country, and argues that criminal constitution contains basic element and presumption element.In Chapter 5, it elaborated an interactive relation that the scope of the public prosecutor’s burden of proof changes conversely as the shape of the accused person’s statement increases or decreases, thus formed three types of the burden of proof of public prosecutor, the elementary type, the contractive type and the expansive type. In Section I, it elaborated two concepts that silence and passive negativity of the accused person along with their influences to the burden of proof of public prosecutors, and proposed the silence and the passive negativity of the accused person have changed neither the scope of the object nor the complicatedness of the fulfillment procedure of the burden of proof of public prosecutors, that resulted in the elementary form. In Section II, it elaborated the concept of confession, the voluntary confession rule and the corroborative confession rule, proposed on the one hand that the confession of the accused will avoid and reduce the scope of object which need to be proved by the public prosecutor, and on the other hand simplified the fulfillment procedure of proving that formed the contractive type. As examples for avoiding and reducing the scope of the object need to be proved, in Anglo-American culture , the procedure "the guilty reply procedure" avoid all the burden of proof of public prosecutors relying on doctrine of punishment on party, and in Continental legal culture, limited by the corroborative confession rule, the object of proof of public prosecutors has not been completely avoided, however, in some aspects such as subjective criminal intent, it has been stipulated explicitly to reduce the scope of object of proof of public prosecutors, what’s more important, the confession of the accused actually reduces the scope of proof when public prosecutors construct the evidence system of indictment in the judicial practice .when it comes to avoid and simplify the fulfillment procedure, such as "the guilty reply procedure" in Anglo-American legal system and summery procedure in our country’s criminal procedure can be example of the former, both of mem actually avoided the procedure when public prosecutors fulfill the burden of proof, for the latter, simplification of trial of ordinary procedure in our country’s criminal prosecution in fact simplified the fulfillment procedure. Took the efficiency value in our criminal prosecution into consideration and absorbed doctrine of punishment on party in Anglo-American legal system ,this section also proposed to consummate the reducing effect to the public prosecutors’ burden of proof by the confession of the accused in our country: first, we should make it clear that the confession of the accused could avoid and reduce the scope of the object of public prosecutors’ burden of proof, second, we should expand the avoiding and reducing effect of the confession of the accused on the procedure when public prosecutors fulfill the burden of proof. In Section III, it elaborated the concrete sorts of the plea of the accused and their nature of proof, and proposed that the plea of the accused could not only expand the scope of the object of public prosecutors’ burden of proof, but also complicate the procedure when public prosecutors fulfill the burden of proof, depending on which the expansive type of burden of proof has formed. This section pointed out particularly two sorts of nature of proof of the plea made by the accused, they are the plea based on burden of proof and the plea based on necessity of proof, and this section made concrete comparisons regarding this.The sixth chapter discusses that a strict meaning of standard of proof should be measures in the course of offering evidence to prove the object which was accused by the prosecutor or proved by the defendant. In a wide meaning, standard of proof contains several proving requirements of proceedings and procedural subjects: register standard, detention standard, arrest standard, investigation ending standard, prosecution standard, conviction and sentencing standard; subject of police examination standard , prosecutor’s standard of proof and judgment of the court which also be called check standard. In Section II of this chapter, the author discusses the relationship between discretional evaluation of evidence and standard of proof. On the basis of introducing the concept and historic development of discretional evaluation of evidence, the writer advanced the dialectical relationship. In Section three of this chapter, the author discusses the relationship between burden of proof and standard of proof.Chapter 7 debates on the interaction between the level of burden of criminal proof and the difference of prosecutor who bear the burden of proof; accordingly, it formed a strict burden of proof, weakening trend burden of proof and easy burden of proof. Section I of this chapter demonstrated the inherent level of standard of criminal proof from four aspects: the difference in object of proof, the difference in nature of proof, the difference in object of proof and the difference in nature of case. It further introduces the level of standard of proof of criminal in Anglo-American law system and Roman-Germanic law system. The second section, the article introduces the probability theory and establishes our level form of standard of proof on prosecutors.The article put out forward three kinds of level: the first level-undoubtedly standards with more than 99 percentage probability reflects the strict burden of proof, it is the main form standard of proof which the prosecutor has taken on; the second level-undoubtedly but with suspicious standards with more than 80 percentage probability reflects the weakening trend burden of proof, it is an auxiliary form; the third level-advantages credible standards with more than 50 percentage probability. That reflects easy burden of proof, it is a secondary auxiliary form. In the third section, interpreting cases through the dimension of proof, the author demonstrates the objective existence and enforcement of the three levels of standard of proof on prosecution.Chapter 8 is the last part provides sound thinking and recommendations about the burden of proof on the basis of analysis the prosecutor burden of proof system deficiencies. Section I of this chapter pointed out that we cancelled the obligation of the defendant to tell the truth, that is, the defendant did not have self-incrimination obligation is the basic premise to improve our burden of proof system on prosecutor. The article discusses that against self-incrimination is the essential international norms in criminal procedure, further more, the writer points out that the truthful testimony has a fundamental conflict with burden of proof system, the performance of the conflict as follows: the confession obligation denying the basic premise of the burden of criminal proof; distorting the basic nature of the burden of criminal proof; ruining the principle of allocating burden of criminal proof. Further more, the article focuses on the positive significance of abolishing the burden of defendant to tell the truth, such as admitting the defendant has the real status in proceeding, establishing the real burden of proof system, containing the phenomenon of extorting confessions by torture. Section II of this chapter provides that establishing a scientific principal for allocating burden of proof is the fundamental requirement to improve our burden of proof on prosecutor. After the article analyses the burden of criminal proof theory in Anglo-American law system and Roman-Germanic law system, briefly, the author reviews a number of pinions about our distribution of burden of criminal proof. The article proposes that our country should be established on the principle of the presumption of innocence, and is detrimental to the presumption of exceptions prove liability principle. This section analyses the realistic condition that defendant takes on the burden of proof, the writer believes that the defendant should be strictly limited to the scope of the burden of proof in that ways and means. That’s including creating the obvious burden of proof of defendant carefully, establishing a presumption of law in favor of the defendant, at the same time encouraging the defendant to take on the proof if it is necessary to achieve an effective defense. This section proposes in exceptional circumstances reducing the prosecutor’s burden of proof in a fair and appropriate way, that is, establishes a measurable adverse presumption of specific rules which is not in the favor of the defendant, including elements of the exceptional rules, near the facts independence rules, damage normal rules and harm to society rules, the article cites and demonstrates several specific circumstances to improve the defendant takes on the burden of proof. More over, at the same time, the article said clearly that the nature of the defendant takes on the burden is the initial form of the burden to provide evidence; burden to provide evidence in the implementation process begin in the middle, with the obvious advantages of striking after then. Section III discuses two specific problems which is involved in our burden of proof on prosecutor in the judicial practice, providing prosecutor takes on the burden in the facts of the process especially in the illegal evidence exclusion commitment, determining burden of proof on prosecutor reasonably and the limits of the judge exercise their investigation out-of-court, that is, establishing the judge’s investigation out-of-court should be followed this three doctrines: the fairness of the position, supplementary content and the limit of legal.In conclusion, the article not only summarized the viewpoints and the innovation of academy, but also pointed out the shortcoming in the article and the endeavor direction to fulfilling the theory.更多还原