Abstract
China’s exclusionary rule of illegally obtained evidence does not specify how to determine the (un)lawfulness of disputed evidence. The exclusionary rule, undergirded by atomism in Anglo-American countries, evinces a holistic approach of evidential evaluation adopted in China’s legislation and practice. Holism in the “trial within trial” derives from judges’ zealous pursuit of truth and a mandate to prevent miscarriages of justice. When judges follow a holistic approach to determine the lawfulness of disputed evidence, independent values of the exclusionary rule would be compromised. More problematically, the psychological effects of coherence shifts make it more difficult to exclude evidence. Nonetheless, institutional tensions between China’s exclusionary rule and other mechanisms provide challenges and opportunities for improving our procedural and evidentiary rules in a global perspective.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
