Authentication of Real Evidence
Chen Ruihua
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1008-6676.2011.21.028
2011-01-01
Abstract:Newly promulgated criminal evidence rules in China have established the system of authentication of real evidence. Authentication has two independent meanings according to different real evidences. One is to prove the real evidence, produced, read out and played in courts, to be exactly the evidence as the offering party says what it is. The other is to prove that the content of the real evidence, produced, read out and played in courts, faithfully contains and reflects the genuine and original condition. In American evidence rules, "unique identification" and "chain of custody" are the two main means for authentication, both requiring all the people who touched, handled and kept the real evidence witness or identify in courts. Although Chinese criminal evidence rules have established the mean of "chain of custody", they only rely on the formal examination of "documentary evidence" to authenticate the reliability of the real evidence in every originating, collecting, pro- ducing, making and keeping stage. Appraisal functions as unveiling the probative value of the real evidence by professional knowledge and technology, however, authentication aims at demonstrating the authenticity and identity and intensifying the relevance of the real evidence, by establishing the reliability of origin, the normalization of collection and the integrity of keeping. Therefore, authentication is not only an independent mean of identifying the real evidence, but also the premise and foundation of appraisal. Any real evidence without authentication can not be used as proper material for appraisal and should be excluded out of the court. Chinese criminal evidence rules have so far established the authentication rules to physical evidence, documentary evidence, audio—visual materials and electronic evidence. They provide concrete requirements for the authentication of materials for appraisal, and establish relevant exclusionary rules to the real evidence lacking of authentication. Nevertheless, the implementation of the authentication system still relies upon related reform in the field of criminal trials and the relationship between investigation and prosecution, etc. It also requires regulation on judges' discretion on whether to admit evidence or not, so as to ensure the practical implementation of the exclusionary rules.