Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach

dialnet-ar-18-ART0001450762

dialnet

Dialnet

Dialnet AR

Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, ISSN 2525-510X, Vol. 7, Nº. 1, 2021, pags. 43-92

English

exclusionary rules
comparative criminal procedure
rules of evidence
admissibility of evidence
regras de exclusão
processo penal comparado
teoria da prova
admissibilidade da prova

exclusionary rules
comparative criminal procedure
rules of evidence
admissibility of evidence
regras de exclusão
processo penal comparado
teoria da prova
admissibilidade da prova
Kuczyńska, Hanna
Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach

This text presents two models of elimination of undesired evidence that operate in common law and continental law states. It analyses the mechanisms of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial which can be defined as the procedural instruments (solutions) adopted in a given model of criminal trial that allow for assessment and eventual elimination of inadmissible evidence as deemed to be undesired in the process of fact-finding. On the basis of a „model approach” it will be shown how such mechanisms of elimination (or blocking) of undesired evidence function in the United States and England, Germany, France, Poland and Italy. Also the stage of elimination will be analysed, as well as the type of procedure of applying a blockade. It will be explained in what ways the atomistic and holistic assessment of evidence work and what consequences they have. The last part of the text will show how the rationale for elimination of evidence in the form of illegality, unreliability or relevance, may result in various consequences depending on the seriousness of violation of law. These elements of analysis will allow to examine whether the continental and common law models of elimination of undesired evidence are coherent and effective and whether they allow for achieving the assumed goal of eliminating of undesired evidence. In the conclusions it will be shown that the final arbiter of admissibility of evidence in both procedural models is a judge and how this solution allows for weighting legally protected interests in every case. The argumentation presented in the article will also lead to an observation that in the continental model of elimination of undesired evidence it cannot be said that there is a full-fledged “mechanism” of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial.

Article

Kuczyńska, Hanna

Kuczyńska, Hanna

Kuczyńska, Hanna

Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach

Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach

Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach

Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach

Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach

mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approach

2021

https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7879428

1709754222650589184

dialnet-ar-18-ART00014507622021-04-29Mechanisms of elimination of undesired evidence from criminal trial: a comparative approachKuczyńska, Hannaexclusionary rulescomparative criminal procedurerules of evidenceadmissibility of evidenceregras de exclusãoprocesso penal comparadoteoria da provaadmissibilidade da provaThis text presents two models of elimination of undesired evidence that operate in common law and continental law states. It analyses the mechanisms of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial which can be defined as the procedural instruments (solutions) adopted in a given model of criminal trial that allow for assessment and eventual elimination of inadmissible evidence as deemed to be undesired in the process of fact-finding. On the basis of a „model approach” it will be shown how such mechanisms of elimination (or blocking) of undesired evidence function in the United States and England, Germany, France, Poland and Italy. Also the stage of elimination will be analysed, as well as the type of procedure of applying a blockade. It will be explained in what ways the atomistic and holistic assessment of evidence work and what consequences they have. The last part of the text will show how the rationale for elimination of evidence in the form of illegality, unreliability or relevance, may result in various consequences depending on the seriousness of violation of law. These elements of analysis will allow to examine whether the continental and common law models of elimination of undesired evidence are coherent and effective and whether they allow for achieving the assumed goal of eliminating of undesired evidence. In the conclusions it will be shown that the final arbiter of admissibility of evidence in both procedural models is a judge and how this solution allows for weighting legally protected interests in every case. The argumentation presented in the article will also lead to an observation that in the continental model of elimination of undesired evidence it cannot be said that there is a full-fledged “mechanism” of blocking information from becoming evidence in a criminal trial.Este artigo pretende apresentar dois modelos de exclusão de provas indesejáveis que operam em ordenamentos continentais e de common law. São analisados os mecanismos de bloqueio de informações antes de se tornaram provas no processo penal, os quais podem ser definidos como instrumentos (soluções) adotadas em um determinado modelo de processo penal que permite a verificação e eventual exclusão de provas inadmissíveis pois definidas como indesejáveis à verificação dos fatos. Com base em uma “perspectiva de modelo”, será descrito o funcionamento desses mecanismos de exclusão (ou bloqueio) de provas indesejáveis nos Estados Unidos e na Inglaterra, na Alemanha, na França, na Polônia e na Itália. Também serão analisados o estágio da eliminação e o tipo de procedimento para aplicar o bloqueio. Analisar-se-á o modo em que a análise atomística e holística da prova atua e as suas consequências. A última parte do texto irá demonstrar como a existência de distintos motivos para a exclusão da prova na forma de ilegalidade, não fiabilidade e irrelevância, a depender da gravidade da violação da lei, podem resultar em diferentes consequências. Isso permitirá verificar se os modelos continentais ou de common law são coerentes e efetivos e se eles atendem ao objetivo almejado de eliminar provas indesejáveis. Nas conclusões, será demonstrado que o árbitro final sobre admissibilidade da prova em ambos os modelos é o julgador e como isso autoriza a ponderação dos interesses legalmente protegidos em cada caso. Assim, também se observará que no modelo continental de exclusão de provas indesejáveis não se pode afirmar que há um mecanismo integralmente desenvolvido para bloquear informações de se tornarem provas no processo penal.2021text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7879428(Revista) ISSN 2525-510XRevista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, ISSN 2525-510X, Vol. 7, Nº. 1, 2021, pags. 43-92engLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI