| How judges use evidence to do the fact-finding has become a research hotspot in criminal procedure law of China in recent years. Empirical studies show that “no fact finding” or “little fact finding” seems to be the mainstream trend, especially in cases without evidence disputes, while “meticulous” fact finding only exists in very few cases with evidence disputes. Overall, Chinese criminal judges adopt not a single but multiple fact-finding modes in using evidence to find the fact of a case. Specifically, in cases without evidence disputes, the “jigsaw puzzle mode” is commonly used, while in cases with evidence disputes, some use the “jigsaw puzzle mode” to strengthen the proof of facts, while others adopt a comprehensive mode of “corroboration+jigsaw puzzle”, that is, using “corroboration mode” to solve the problem of consistency of the direction of the disputed evidence information, and “jigsaw puzzle mode” to ensure that the evidence in the case sufficiently and comprehensively covers all the essential facts. In the long run, China needs to continue to create a more scientific criminal fact-finding (proof) mode with Chinese characteristics and carry out related theoretical constructions. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号