In bribery cases, some whistleblowers will provide audio recordings as evidence that the defendant has accepted bribes. In the Code of Criminal Procedure, audio recordings are classified as audiovisual materials. Because audio-visual materials are tangible and audible, they have a high evidentiary value. At the same time, audio-visual materials are extremely susceptible to falsification and thus lose their authenticity. Therefore, audio-visual materials must also undergo rigorous scrutiny before they can be used as a basis for finalization. The focus of the review of audio-visual materials, the mainland Criminal Procedure Law, the interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Law, and the rules of evidence for handling death penalty cases, have clear provisions. Considering the easy-to-change nature of audio-visual materials, once the authenticity is in doubt, it is very likely to lead to unjust, false and wrongly decided cases. The Criminal Procedure Law also clearly stipulates that audio-visual materials cannot be used as the basis for a verdict in the following two situations: 1. tampering, falsification, or inability to determine authenticity; 2. Where there are doubts about the time, place, and method of production or acquisition, and no reasonable explanation can be made.
The following is two innocent retrial cases for everyone to learn from and learn from. The main reason why two of the defendants were retried and acquitted was that after the audio-visual materials used by the court of first instance to determine the facts of the case were excluded in accordance with law, the evidence accusing the defendant of guilt could no longer meet the statutory standard of proof that the facts were clear and the evidence was indeed sufficient, and according to the principle of never having a doubt, only an explanation in favor of the defendant could be made.
Bai Moumou's bribery case:
Recording materials and appraisal documents, Xin XX provided the investigation organs with the three audio recordings of the conversation with Bai XX, which were appraised by the Judicial Appraisal Center of the China Criminal Police College, and concluded that none of the three voice examination materials found traces of editing and processing. The Court of First Instance held that. It is believed that the content of the first recording is objectively true and can be used as evidence.
The above-mentioned recording is another direct evidence of the original trial and judgment of this case, and the source of the recording is only Xin's testimony, which mentions that his wife should hand over the recording to the investigation organ. Among the available evidence are only the list of seized items and the list of returned items. Moreover, the investigation organs seized a voice recorder with a model of V-860, and the appraisal report of the Forensic Identification Center of the China Criminal Police College recorded that "the voice examination material was extracted from a USB stick provided by the inspector". In the recording, Xin Moumou repeatedly and deliberately mentioned four times that "I took (that) 50,000 yuan in total", and the court of first instance only relied on Xin's statement to find that the recording was inadvertently recorded by Xin and had no factual and legal basis.
Liang Moumou's bribery case:
On the question of whether the tapes involved in the case should be admissible. First of all, Peng X privately recorded the conversation process between the two of them in order to report Liang X, and the time when Peng X reported money to the procuratorate was October 11; and according to the recording time recorded in the tape, the A side was October 15 and the B side was October 10; Peng X later stated that the recording time recorded on the B side of the tape was October 10, and the recording time should be The time when Pang X withdrew money from the bank, that is, October 13. Secondly, the tape was identified by the Ministry of Public Security, and the appraisal conclusion was that the B side of the tape sent for inspection, the conversation content marked 000-182 by the counter was near 006-007, and near 121-122. In summary, according to the rule of doubtful exclusion of evidence, this court will not accept the audio tapes involved in the case.
Legal issues can be sent to private messages
Beijing Lanqin Lawyers Criminal Legal Service Group (public number)