COMPARATIVE LEGAL ASPECT OF PROHIBITION OF USE OF ILLEGAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Miodrag Simović, Marina M. Simović, Vladimir M. Simović

DOI Number
-
First page
1
Last page
12

Abstract


Illegal evidence term in the criminal proceedings arises many theoretical deliberations and disputes and is one of mail problems of modern law of evidence. The complexity of the problem is one of the most difficult issues of criminal procedural law. The issue is about a complex criminal procedural term which is constantly and slowly evolving and developing due to legal interventions, but primarely due to its practical value.

When having look at the situation with comparative law, one may see that the majority of legal systems does not use absolute exclusion of illegal evidence in the criminal proceedings. Just the opposite, such a model is subject to criticism due to numerous lacks and negative consequences. Only rare systems using the absolute way of selecting of illegal evidence do not have a wide scale of rules and apply various exceptions. When analysing comparative law analysis confirms that it is necessary to focus not only on existence of rules but also to the scale of exclusion.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Beulke, W. (2000). Strafprozeßrecht. Heidelberg: Müller.

Choo, A. (2012). Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Corpus juris; translated by Krapac, D., Novoselec, P. (2003). Zagreb: Hrvatska udruga za evropsko pravo.

Cramer, S., Bürgle, M. (2004). Die Strafprozessualen Beweisverwertungsverbote. Stuttgart: Boorberg.

Delmas-Marty, M., Spencer, J. R. (2004). European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Harfield, C. (2012). Covert Investigation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Jackson, J. D., Summers, S. J. (2012). The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keane, A., McKeown, P. (2012). The Modern Law of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Keane, A. (2008). The Modern Law of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Klarman, M. et al. (2012). The Political Heart of Criminal Procedure: Essays on Themes of William J. Stuntz. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

LaFave, W. R. et al. (2000). Criminal procedure, 3rd edition. St. Paul: West Group.

Mowbray, A. (2012). Cases Materials and Commentary on the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pilnacek, C. (1999). Überblick über die Grundsätze der Beweisermittlung und der Beweisverbote im österreicheischen Strafverfahren. In: Höpfel, F., Huber, B. Beweisverbote in Ländern der EU und vergleichbaren Rechtsordnungen, Freiburg: Max-Planck Institut.

Renucci, J-F. (2005). Code de Procédure Pénale, Paris: Dalloz.

Schabas, W. (2010). The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schroeder, F. C. (2001). Strafprozeßrecht. München: Beck.

Seiler, S. (2000). Strafprozeßrecht. Wien: Universitätsverlag.

Stone, R. (2012). Civil Liberties and Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stone, R. (1997). Entry, Search and Seizure. London: Sweet and Maxwell.

Triffterer, O. (1999). Commentary on the Rome Statute. Baden: Nomos.

White, R. et al. (2010). The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Alschuler, A. (2008). The Exclusionary Rule and Causation: Hudson v. Michigan and Its Ancestors, Iowa Law Review, vol. 93.

Arenella, P. (1983). Rethinking the Functions of Criminal Procedure: The Warren and Burger Courts’ Competing Ideologies. Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 72.

Bracey, C. (2000). Truth and Legitimacy in the American Criminal Process. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, vol. 90, (2).

Bradley, C. (2001). Mapp Goes Abroad. Case Western Reserve Law Review, vol. 52.

Bradley, C. (2010). Reconceiving the Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule. Law And Contemporary Problems, vol. 73.

Damaška, M. (1972). Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models od Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, Vol. 121.

Giannoulopoulos, D. (2007). The exclusion of improperly obtained evidence in Greece: putting constitutional rights first. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, vol. 11.

Glasser, L. (2003). The American Exclusionary Rule Debate: Looking To England And Canada For Guidance. George Washington International Law Review, vol. 35.

Kahan, D. M., Meares, T. L. (1998). Foreword: The Coming Crisis of Criminal Procedure. Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 86, (5).

Kamisar, Y. (1987). Comparative Reprehensibility And The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule. Michigan Law Review, vol. 86.

Karas, Ž., Jukić, M. (2009). Promjene u sustavu nezakonitih dokaza s osvrtom na kretanja u poredbenom pravu. Zagreb: Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu, vol. 16, (2).

Karas, Ž. (2006). Odnos Evropskog suda za ljudska prava prema nezakonitim policijskim dokazima. Zagreb: Pravni vjesnik, (3-4).

Köhler, M. (1995). Prozeßrechtsverhältnis und Ermittlungseingriffe. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaften. vol. 101, (1).

Kos, D. (2004). Nezakoniti dokazi u kaznenom postupovnom pravu Republike Hrvatske. Hrvatska pravna revija, (1).

Luna, E. (2004). A Place For Comparative Criminal Procedure. Brandeis Law Journal, vol. 42.

Mahoney, R. (2004). Evidence. New Zealand Law Review.

Miles, C. (2002). The Exclusionary Rule. Georgetown Law Journal, vol. 90.

Perrin T. (1999). An Invitation to Dialogue. Pepperdine Law Review, vol. 26.

Roach, K., Friedland, M. L. (1996). Borderline Justice: Policing in the Two Niagaras. American Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 23.

Rogall, K. (1979). Gegenwärtiger Stand und Entwicklungstendenzen der Lehre von den strafprozessualen Beweisverboten. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaften, vol. 91, (1).

Seiler, S. (2000). Strafprozeßrecht. Wien: Universitätsverlag.

Thaman, S. (2001). Miranda In Comparative Law. Saint Louis University Law Journal, vol. 45.

Yackley, J. (2007). Hudson v. Michigan: Has The Court Turned The Exclusionary Rule Into The Exclusionary Exception?. Hamline Law Review, vol. 30.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN 1450-5517 (Print)
ISSN 2406-1786 (Online)