Evidence Evaluation

Chinese source (authoritative): ../../skills/evidence-evaluation/SKILL.md

Evidentiary Validity Evaluation

Overview Table

Legal Disclaimer

Important notice: The evidentiary validity evaluation provided by this skill is assistive legal analysis and does not constitute a formal legal opinion. Whether evidence is ultimately admitted is decided by the court in accordance with law. Users should note:

1. Evidence evaluation depends heavily on specific case facts and examination of originals/original objects; AI cannot directly perceive physical evidence
2. Authenticity determinations often require courtroom cross-examination, expert examination, and similar procedures; AI evaluation is preliminary analysis only
3. Evidence rules and standards of proof differ substantially across litigation types (civil / criminal / administrative)
4. AI evaluation results should be reviewed by a practicing lawyer or legal professional before use

I. Core Conceptual Framework

1.1 The “Three Attributes” of Evidence (三性) Framework

Copy code
Evidentiary Validity Evaluation
├── Evidentiary competence (admissibility)
│   ├── Authenticity (真实性 / Authenticity)
│   │   ├── Formal authenticity: whether the evidence medium itself is genuine and untampered
│   │   └── Substantive authenticity: whether the content reflected by the evidence accords with objective facts
│   ├── Legality (合法性 / Legality)
│   │   ├── Subject legality: whether the party collecting the evidence was qualified
│   │   ├── Formal legality: whether the form of the evidence meets statutory requirements
│   │   ├── Procedural legality: whether collection procedures were lawful
│   │   └── Content legality: whether the content does not violate prohibitory legal rules
│   └── Relevance (关联性 / Relevance)
│       ├── Direct relevance: a direct proving relationship between the evidence and the fact to be proved
│       └── Indirect relevance: an indirect inferential relationship between the evidence and the fact to be proved
└── Probative value (证明力 / Probative Value)
    ├── Probative value of a single item: the degree to which one item proves the fact to be proved
    ├── Corroboration among items: mutual corroboration or contradiction among multiple items
    └── Completeness of the evidence chain: whether all evidence forms a complete chain of proof

1.2 Types of Evidence and Statutory Forms

1.3 Standards of Proof

1.4 Allocation of the Burden of Proof

II. Complete Workflow

Stage One: Evidence Information Collection and Classification

Step 1: Identify basic information for each item of evidence

For each evidence material, extract the following:

Copy code
- Evidence number / name
- Type of evidence (documentary / physical / electronic data / witness testimony / expert opinion, etc.)
- Source of evidence (who provided it, how obtained)
- Form of evidence (original / copy / duplicate / reproduction)
- Time of submission
- Fact intended to be proved (purpose of proof)
- Litigation type (civil / criminal / administrative)

Step 2: Determine the facts to be proved

Copy code
- List all facts to be proved in the case
- Map each fact to corresponding evidence
- Label the allocation of the burden of proof for each fact
- Determine the applicable standard of proof

Step 3: Classify and organize evidence

Copy code
Classify along the following dimensions:
├── By type of evidence
├── By fact to be proved
├── By submitting party (plaintiff / defendant / third party / court-obtained)
└── By nature of evidence (direct / indirect; original / hearsay-derived; affirmative / rebuttal)

Stage Two: Item-by-Item Review of the “Three Attributes” (三性)

Step 4: Authenticity review

Copy code
Review checklist:
□ Is documentary evidence an original? Has a copy been checked against the original?
□ Is physical evidence the original object? Is there damage, deterioration, or contamination?
□ Does electronic data have complete generation, storage, and transmission records? Has it been notarized or preserved on a blockchain?
□ Is witness testimony based on the witness’s personal perception? Is there hearsay?
□ Are the materials submitted for expert examination authentic and complete?
□ Are audiovisual materials on the original medium? Are there signs of editing or splicing?
□ Are there internal contradictions in the content of the evidence?
□ Does the evidence contradict other known facts?
□ Is there contrary evidence showing the item is not authentic?
□ Does the time the evidence was formed align with the case timeline?

Step 5: Legality review

Copy code
Review checklist:
□ Was the collecting subject qualified?
  - Civil: parties, agents, notarial offices, etc.
  - Criminal: investigative organs and their personnel (compliance with recusal rules)
  - Administrative: collected by the agency when making the administrative act (post-act collection generally not permitted)
□ Were collection procedures lawful?
  - Was there torture to extract confession, violence, threats, or other illegal means?
  - Were search and seizure conducted with lawful formalities?
  - Were technical investigation measures approved?
  - Were others’ lawful rights and interests infringed (e.g., illegal wiretapping, secret filming)?
□ Is the form of the evidence lawful?
  - Does documentary evidence meet statutory formal requirements?
  - Was the expert opinion issued by a qualified institution and qualified experts?
  - Does the witness have capacity to testify?
  - Does the inspection record bear witness signatures?
□ Does it fall within illegally obtained evidence that must be excluded?
  - Criminal: confessions collected by torture or other illegal methods (absolute exclusion)
  - Criminal: witness testimony and victim statements collected by violence, threats, or other illegal methods (absolute exclusion)
  - Criminal: physical or documentary evidence collected in violation of statutory procedure that may seriously affect judicial fairness and cannot be cured or reasonably explained (discretionary exclusion)
  - Civil: evidence formed or obtained by methods that seriously infringe others’ lawful rights and interests, violate prohibitory legal rules, or seriously violate public order and good morals

Step 6: Relevance review

Copy code
Review checklist:
□ Is there a logical connection between the evidence and the fact to be proved?
□ Is the connection direct or indirect?
  - Direct evidence: can alone and directly prove the fact to be proved
  - Indirect evidence: must be combined with other evidence to prove the fact to be proved
□ How strong is the relevance? (strong / medium / weak)
□ Is the evidence related to the disputed focus of the case?
□ Is the inferential chain for indirect evidence reasonable and complete?
□ Is relevance so weak that the item lacks evidentiary value?

Stage Three: Probative Value Assessment

Step 7: Probative value of a single item

Apply different assessment rules by type of evidence:

7.1 Documentary evidence — probative value rules

7.2 Witness testimony — probative value rules

7.3 Electronic data — probative value rules

7.4 Expert opinions — probative value rules

7.5 Party statements — probative value rules

Step 8: Analysis of corroboration among items of evidence

Copy code
Analytical framework:
1. Draw an evidence-relationship map
   - Mark the fact each item points to
   - Mark corroboration relationships among items (consistent / contradictory / complementary)
   
2. Identify corroboration patterns
   - Full corroboration: multiple items fully consistent on key facts
   - Partial corroboration: consistent on main facts, differences in detail
   - Mutual contradiction: irreconcilable contradictions among items
   
3. Contradiction analysis and handling
   - Analyze causes (memory bias / different positions / fabricated evidence)
   - Judge whether contradictions affect core fact-finding
   - Determine rules for accepting or rejecting contradictory evidence

Step 9: Completeness of the evidence chain

Copy code
Assessment criteria:
□ Does the evidence chain cover all key links of the facts to be proved?
□ Are there breaks in the chain (a key link lacking evidentiary support)?
□ Do indirect items form a complete logical chain?
□ Is the conclusion from the chain unique (criminal cases) or at a high degree of probability (civil cases)?
□ Are there reasonable alternative explanations that have not been excluded?

Stage Four: Comprehensive Judgment and Conclusions

Step 10: Overall probative-value judgment

Copy code
1. For each fact to be proved, aggregate assessment results for all related evidence
2. Weigh the probative value of supporting and opposing evidence
3. Against the applicable standard of proof, judge whether the fact is established
4. Clearly flag uncertain facts and explain why

Step 11: Form evaluation conclusions

Copy code
Types of conclusions:
- Evidence sufficient: the fact meets the standard of proof and may be found established
- Evidence basically sufficient: main facts are supported; individual details need reinforcement
- Evidence insufficient: the standard of proof is not met; the fact is difficult to find established
- Evidence contradictory: supporting and opposing evidence are roughly equal; further investigation needed

Step 12: Propose reinforcement recommendations

Copy code
For weak links, propose:
- Types and content of evidence that need to be supplemented
- Recommendations for fixing and preserving existing evidence
- Cross-examination strategy recommendations (e.g., apply for witness appearance, apply for expert examination)
- Reminders on proof deadlines and procedures

III. Common Domains and Legal-Source Cross-Reference

3.1 Civil Litigation Evidence Rules

3.2 Criminal Litigation Evidence Rules

3.3 Administrative Litigation Evidence Rules

3.4 Special Rules for Particular Types of Evidence

IV. Verification and Screening Rules

4.1 Admissibility Screening (Threshold Review)

Copy code
Gate 1: Formal review
├── Is it a statutory type of evidence? → No → Do not admit
├── Was it submitted within the proof time limit? → No → Review whether there is justified reason
├── Does it meet statutory formal requirements? → No → Review whether it can be cured
└── Pass → Proceed to Gate 2

Gate 2: Legality review
├── Are there grounds for exclusion of illegally obtained evidence? → Yes → Initiate exclusion procedure
├── Are there defects in collection procedure? → Yes → Review whether they can be cured / reasonably explained
├── Did collection methods infringe lawful rights and interests? → Yes → Review severity
└── Pass → Proceed to Gate 3

Gate 3: Relevance review
├── Is there a logical connection to the fact to be proved? → No → Do not admit
├── Is relevance strong enough to have evidentiary value? → No → Do not admit
└── Pass → Proceed to probative-value assessment

Gate 4: Authenticity review
├── Is the evidence medium authentic? → In doubt → Apply for expert examination / reinforcement
├── Is the content authentic? → In doubt → Judge comprehensively with other evidence
└── Pass → Determine the level of probative value

4.2 Preferential Probative-Value Rules (Civil Litigation)

Under the Civil Evidence Provisions and judicial practice, probative value generally follows this preferential order:

Copy code
1. Official documentary evidence made by state organs or social organizations pursuant to authority > other documentary evidence
2. Physical evidence, archives, expert opinions, inspection records, and notarized or registered documentary evidence > other documentary evidence, audiovisual materials, and witness testimony
3. Original evidence > hearsay-derived / transmitted evidence
4. Direct evidence > indirect evidence
5. Testimony of a witness with an interest in one party < other witness testimony
6. Testimony of a witness who appeared > written testimony of a witness who did not appear
7. Several items of different types that are consistent in content > a single isolated item

4.3 Evidence That Cannot Alone Serve as the Basis for Finding Facts

The following cannot alone serve as the basis for finding case facts and require reinforcement by other evidence:

Copy code
In civil litigation:
- Testimony by a minor that does not match the minor’s age and intellectual condition
- Testimony by a witness with an interest in one party or that party’s agent
- Audiovisual materials or electronic data with doubts
- Copies or reproductions that cannot be checked against originals or original objects
- Testimony of a witness who failed to appear without justified reason

In criminal litigation:
- Statements, testimony, and confessions by victims, witnesses, and defendants who have physiological or mental defects that create some difficulty in perceiving and expressing case facts, but who have not lost the capacity for correct perception and expression
- Testimony favorable to the defendant by a witness with an interest in the defendant
- Defendant confessions that require corroboration by other evidence (principle that lone evidence cannot alone establish guilt)

V. Output Format Templates

5.1 Single-Item Evidence Evaluation Form

markdownCopy code
## Evidence Evaluation Form

### Basic Information
| Item | Content |
|------|------|
| Evidence number | [Number] |
| Evidence name | [Name] |
| Type of evidence | [Documentary / physical / electronic data / witness testimony / expert opinion / ...] |
| Submitting party | [Plaintiff / defendant / third party] |
| Form of evidence | [Original / copy / ...] |
| Fact intended to be proved | [Specific fact to be proved] |

### Three-Attribute Review (三性)

#### Authenticity assessment
- **Conclusion:** [Authentic / in doubt / not authentic]
- **Basis:** [Specific analysis]
- **Risk points:** [If any]

#### Legality assessment
- **Conclusion:** [Lawful / defective / unlawful]
- **Basis:** [Specific analysis]
- **Risk points:** [If any]

#### Relevance assessment
- **Conclusion:** [Direct relevance / indirect relevance / insufficient relevance]
- **Basis:** [Specific analysis]
- **Degree of relevance:** [Strong / medium / weak]

### Probative Value Assessment
- **Single-item probative value level:** [High / medium / low]
- **Reinforcement needed:** [Yes / no]
- **Reinforcement recommendation:** [If needed]

### Overall Assessment
- **Admissibility conclusion:** [Admissible / conditionally admissible / not admissible]
- **Confidence:** [★★★★★/★★★★☆/★★★☆☆/★★☆☆☆/★☆☆☆☆]
- **Special notes:** [If any]

5.2 Full-Case Comprehensive Evidence Evaluation Report

markdownCopy code
# Full-Case Comprehensive Evidence Evaluation Report

## I. Basic Case Information
| Item | Content |
|------|------|
| Case type | [Civil / criminal / administrative] |
| Cause of action | [Specific cause] |
| Applicable standard of proof | [Beyond reasonable doubt / high degree of probability / ...] |
| Total number of evidence items | [X] |
| Evaluation date | [Date] |

## II. Facts to Be Proved and Burden Allocation
| No. | Fact to be proved | Party bearing burden | Standard of proof |
|------|---------|-----------|---------|
| 1 | [Fact 1] | [Plaintiff / defendant] | [Standard] |
| 2 | [Fact 2] | [Plaintiff / defendant] | [Standard] |

## III. Summary of Item-by-Item Evaluations
| No. | Name | Type | Authenticity | Legality | Relevance | Probative value | Admissibility |
|----------|---------|------|--------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| 1 | [Name] | [Type] | [Conclusion] | [Conclusion] | [Conclusion] | [Level] | [Conclusion] |

## IV. Evidence-Chain Analysis
### 4.1 Evidence-relationship map
[Describe corroboration / contradiction among items]

### 4.2 Completeness of the evidence chain
| Fact to be proved | Supporting evidence | Opposing evidence | Chain status | Meets standard of proof? |
|---------|---------|---------|-----------|----------------|

## V. Overall Evaluation Conclusions
### 5.1 Findings on each fact to be proved
| Fact to be proved | Finding | Confidence | Notes |
|---------|---------|--------|------|

### 5.2 Overall assessment
[Comprehensive evaluation of all evidence in the case]

## VI. Reinforcement Recommendations
| Priority | Recommendation | Purpose | Feasibility |
|--------|---------|------|--------|

## VII. Risk Warnings
[List main evidentiary risks and response recommendations]

VI. Confidence Annotation System

6.1 Confidence for a Single Item of Evidence

6.2 Confidence for Overall Conclusions

VII. Common Errors and Prevention

7.1 Fatal Error Table

7.2 Common Traps

VIII. Special Scenario Handling

8.1 Exclusion Procedure for Illegally Obtained Evidence

Copy code
Trigger conditions:
- In a criminal case, the defense applies to exclude illegally obtained evidence
- In a civil case, one party asserts the other’s evidence was illegally obtained

Handling process:
1. Review whether the exclusion application provides relevant clues or materials
2. Distinguish absolute exclusion from discretionary exclusion
   - Absolute exclusion (criminal): confessions obtained by torture or other illegal methods; witness testimony and victim statements obtained by violence or threats
   - Discretionary exclusion (criminal): physical or documentary evidence collected in violation of procedure that may seriously affect judicial fairness and cannot be cured or reasonably explained
   - Civil exclusion: seriously infringing others’ lawful rights and interests, violating prohibitory legal rules, or seriously violating public order and good morals
3. Review the prosecuting authority’s / collecting party’s proof of legality
4. Judge whether the exclusion standard is met
5. Assess the impact of exclusion on the full-case evidence system

Points of attention:
- The “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule has limited application in China; derivative evidence from illegal evidence is not automatically excluded
- Exclusion of repeated confessions requires case-specific analysis (confessions after change of interrogators may not be excluded)
- Distinguish defective evidence from illegally obtained evidence: defective evidence may be cured; illegally obtained evidence must be excluded

8.2 Special Review of Electronic Data

Copy code
Review framework:
1. Generation
   - Was the system that generated the electronic data operating normally?
   - Was there human interference in the generation process?
   
2. Storage
   - Is the storage medium safe and reliable?
   - Are there anti-tampering measures (e.g., blockchain, timestamps)?
   - Was modification possible during storage?
   
3. Transmission
   - Was transmission complete?
   - Was there data loss or damage?
   
4. Extraction
   - Was the extracting subject qualified?
   - Was the extraction method scientific and standardized?
   - Was an extraction record made?
   - Were there witnesses?
   
5. Presentation
   - Is the presented content consistent with the original data?
   - Did format conversion affect content integrity?

Special review points for common electronic-data types:
- WeChat/QQ chat records: real-name authentication status; whether the conversation is complete; whether notarized
- Email: header information; send/receive server records; whether digitally signed
- Web content: whether notarially preserved; whether the page could have been modified
- Electronic contracts: whether electronic signatures comply with the *Electronic Signature Law*
- Surveillance video: device operating status; time calibration; integrity of storage medium

8.3 Special Handling of Evidence Formed Abroad

Copy code
Handling rules:
1. Evidence formed outside the territory of the People’s Republic of China:
   - Shall be certified by the notarial authority of the place of formation
   - And authenticated by the embassy or consulate of the People’s Republic of China in that country
   - Or shall undergo certification formalities provided in a treaty between the PRC and that country

2. Evidence from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan:
   - Hong Kong: notarized by Hong Kong lawyers entrusted by the Ministry of Justice
   - Macao: notarized by China Legal Service (Macao) Company
   - Taiwan: notarized by local notarial authorities and confirmed by institutions such as SEF / ARATS

3. Evidence in a foreign language:
   - Shall be accompanied by a Chinese translation
   - The translation shall be made by a qualified translation institution

Review checklist:
□ Are notarization and authentication formalities complete?
□ Is the notarization–authentication chain complete?
□ Is the translation accurate? (If disputed, re-translation may be applied for)
□ Does the content of overseas evidence meet substantive requirements of PRC law?

8.4 Urgent Handling of Evidence Preservation

Copy code
Trigger conditions:
- Evidence may be destroyed
- Evidence may become difficult to obtain later
- The opposing party may destroy evidence

Handling recommendations:
1. Pre-suit preservation: apply to the court at the place where the evidence is located, the respondent’s domicile, or a court with jurisdiction over the case
2. In-suit preservation: apply to the court hearing the case
3. Notarial preservation: notarial preservation of electronic data, on-site conditions, etc.
4. Lawyer witnessing: in emergencies, first fix evidence through lawyer witnessing

Points of attention:
- For pre-suit preservation, suit must be filed within 30 days after the court takes preservation measures
- The application should state basic information about the evidence and the necessity of preservation
- Security may be required

8.5 Handling Contradictory Evidence

Copy code
Types of contradiction and handling methods:

1. Same witness’s contradictory statements over time
   → Review reasons for change; take hearing statements as controlling (unless reasonably explained)
   → Lower the overall probative value of that witness’s testimony

2. Contradictions among different witnesses’ testimony
   → Review each witness’s conditions of perception, interests, and cognitive capacity
   → Apply preferential probative-value rules to decide acceptance or rejection
   → Where necessary, apply for confrontation among witnesses

3. Contradiction between documentary evidence and witness testimony
   → Documentary evidence generally has greater probative value than witness testimony
   → But authenticity and formation background of the documentary evidence must still be reviewed

4. Contradiction among expert opinions (multiple examinations)
   → Review materials, methods, and expert qualifications for each examination
   → Where necessary, apply for re-examination or supplemental examination
   → The court may organize experts to appear for cross-examination

5. Contradiction between party statements and objective evidence
   → Objective evidence (physical, documentary, electronic data, etc.) generally prevails over party statements
   → Contradiction with objective evidence may affect the credibility of the party’s statements as a whole

IX. Quality Checklists

9.1 Pre-Evaluation Checklist

Copy code
□ Has the litigation type (civil / criminal / administrative) been confirmed?
□ Has the applicable evidence-rule system been confirmed?
□ Have all facts to be proved been clarified?
□ Has the burden of proof been correctly allocated?
□ Has the applicable standard of proof been determined?
□ Has information on all evidence materials to be evaluated been collected?
□ Have the disputed focuses of the case been understood?

9.2 In-Evaluation Checklist

Copy code
□ Has every item undergone three-attribute (三性) review?
□ Has evaluation strictly followed “competence first, then probative value”?
□ Have special review rules for different types of evidence been observed?
□ Has the possibility of excluding illegally obtained evidence been reviewed?
□ Have corroboration and contradiction among items been analyzed?
□ Has completeness of the evidence chain been assessed?
□ Has attention been paid to evidence needing reinforcement?
□ Have possible opposing cross-examination opinions been considered?
□ Have uncertain judgments been annotated with confidence levels?

9.3 Post-Evaluation Checklist

Copy code
□ Are evaluation conclusions checked against the applicable standard of proof?
□ Is there a clear finding opinion for each fact to be proved?
□ Are confidence levels annotated for evaluation conclusions?
□ Have reinforcement recommendations been proposed?
□ Have major evidentiary risks been identified?
□ Is the output format complete and standardized?
□ Are there logical contradictions or omissions?
□ Has the limitation of AI evaluation been disclosed?
□ Has review by professionals been recommended?

X. Complete Examples

Example One: Simple Scenario — Evaluation of Evidence in a Private Lending Dispute

Case Background

Plaintiff Zhang sued defendant Li in a private lending dispute, alleging that on 15 March 2023 Li borrowed RMB 500,000 from Zhang, with an agreed annual interest rate of 12% and a one-year term, and that Li failed to repay when due.

Evidence Submitted by the Plaintiff

Defendant’s Cross-Examination Opinions

• On Evidence 1: Admits authenticity of the signature on the IOU, but asserts that RMB 300,000 has already been repaid
• On Evidence 2: No objection
• On Evidence 3: Disputes authenticity; asserts screenshots may have been tampered with
• On Evidence 4: Disputes; witness did not appear, and Wang is the plaintiff’s colleague

Evaluation Process

I. Determine the evaluation framework

• Litigation type: Civil litigation
• Cause of action: Private lending dispute
• Applicable evidence rules: Civil Procedure Law and Civil Evidence Provisions
• Standard of proof: High degree of probability
• Burden of proof: Plaintiff bears the burden of proving establishment of the lending relationship and delivery of the loan; defendant bears the burden of proving repayment of RMB 300,000

II. Facts to be proved

III. Item-by-item evidence evaluation

Evidence 1: IOU (original)

Evidence 2: Bank transfer record (original)

Evidence 3: WeChat chat screenshots (printouts, not notarized)

Reinforcement recommendations:

1. Recommend that the plaintiff provide original chat records on the phone and display them in court
2. Or apply for notarial preservation of the WeChat chat records
3. Or obtain original communication records from the WeChat operator (Tencent)

Evidence 4: Written testimony of witness Wang (witness did not appear)

Reinforcement recommendations:

1. Apply for witness Wang to appear and submit to cross-examination
2. If the witness truly cannot appear for justified reasons, submit supporting materials
3. Seek other disinterested witnesses

IV. Evidence-chain analysis

Fact 1 (lending consensus):

• Evidence 1 (original IOU): direct proof, high probative value ★★★★★
• Evidence 3 (WeChat screenshots): indirect corroboration, low ★★☆☆☆
• Evidence 4 (witness testimony): indirect corroboration, low ★★☆☆☆
• Conclusion: The original IOU already fully proves lending consensus; even without Evidence 3 and 4, Fact 1 meets the high-degree-of-probability standard. ✅ Fact established

Fact 2 (loan delivery):

• Evidence 2 (bank transfer record): direct proof, high ★★★★★
• Evidence 1 (IOU): indirect corroboration (IOUs are typically issued after receipt of funds)
• Conclusion: Bank transfer record and IOU corroborate each other; fully prove that RMB 500,000 was actually delivered. ✅ Fact established

Fact 3 (defendant has repaid RMB 300,000):

• Defendant asserts repayment of RMB 300,000 but submitted no evidence (e.g., transfer records, receipts)
• Burden rests on the defendant
• Conclusion: Defendant has not discharged the burden of proof. ❌ Fact not established (until defendant supplements evidence)

V. Overall evaluation conclusions

VI. Reinforcement recommendations

VII. Risk warnings

1. Primary risk: Defendant may, within the proof time limit, supplement evidence of repayment of RMB 300,000 (e.g., transfer records); prepare a response plan in advance
2. Secondary risk: If WeChat chat records are not reinforced, they may not be admitted under strong challenge, but this does not affect core fact-finding
3. Overall assessment: Plaintiff’s core evidence (original IOU + bank transfer record) has strong probative value and a complete chain; likelihood of success is relatively high

Example Two: Complex Scenario — Evaluation of Evidence in a Criminal Case (Intentional Injury)

Case Background

The prosecuting authority charges that on the evening of 20 January 2024, at a bar, defendant Zhao quarreled with victim Qian over a trivial matter and struck Qian’s head with a beer bottle, causing Qian second-degree serious injury. After coming into custody, Zhao first confessed to the crime, then retracted and claimed self-defense (正当防卫).

Evidence Submitted by the Prosecuting Authority

Issues Raised by the Defense

1. Zhao’s first confession was made after continuous interrogation exceeding 24 hours, suspected fatigue interrogation
2. Surveillance video shows Qian first pushed and shoved Zhao
3. Witness Zhou’s testimony supports Zhao’s claim of self-defense

Evaluation Process

I. Determine the evaluation framework

• Litigation type: Criminal litigation
• Charge: Intentional injury (causing serious injury)
• Applicable evidence rules: Criminal Procedure Law and Criminal Procedure Law Interpretation
• Standard of proof: Beyond reasonable doubt (evidence reliable and sufficient)
• Burden of proof: Prosecuting authority bears the burden of proving the criminal facts

II. Facts to be proved

III. Item-by-item evidence evaluation

Evidence 1: Zhao’s first confession (guilty confession)

⚠️ Analysis of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence:

Copy code
1. Review points:
   - Do times recorded in interrogation transcripts exceed the statutory limit?
   - Is there contemporaneous audio-video recording? Is it complete?
   - Were meals and rest guaranteed during interrogation?
   - Can the prosecuting authority prove lawful collection?

2. Legal application:
   - If fatigue interrogation is confirmed, the confession may be one collected by illegal methods
   - Under Art. 2 of the *Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Strict Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases*,
     confessions collected by illegal methods such as illegally restricting personal liberty shall be excluded
   - In judicial practice, fatigue interrogation is generally treated as a disguised illegal collection method

3. Preliminary judgment:
   - If the prosecuting authority cannot adequately prove interrogation legality, there is a substantial risk of exclusion
   - Even if not excluded, probative value is greatly reduced by retraction

Evidence 2: Zhao’s second and subsequent confessions (retracted; claims self-defense)

Evidence 3: Victim Qian’s statement

Key contradiction: Victim’s statement that “Zhao struck first without cause” contradicts surveillance showing “Qian first pushed Zhao”—this is the core dispute.

Evidence 4: Testimony of witness Sun (bar server)

Key information: Pay special attention to Sun’s description of the key fact of “who struck first.”

Evidence 5: Testimony of witness Zhou (Zhao’s friend)

Evidence 6: Bar surveillance video (partial; critical period footage blurred)

Key finding: The identifiable portion shows Qian first pushing, which contradicts the victim’s claim that “Zhao struck first without cause” and supports the defense’s self-defense claim.

Recommendation: Apply for technical enhancement of the surveillance video to obtain clearer images.

Evidence 7: Forensic expert opinion (second-degree serious injury)

Review points confirmed:

• ✅ Expert institution: has judicial appraisal qualification
• ✅ Expert: has forensic clinical appraisal practice qualification
• ✅ Examined materials: the victim personally; clear source
• ✅ Appraisal standard: based on the Standards for Assessing the Degree of Human Injury
• ✅ Conclusion: clearly second-degree serious injury

Evidence 8: On-site inspection record and photographs

Evidence 9: Beer bottle (instrument of the offense)

Recommendation: Confirm whether fingerprint extraction and comparison were conducted.

Evidence 10: Explanation of how the defendant came into custody

IV. Evidence-chain analysis and core disputes

4.1 Evidence chain for undisputed facts

4.2 Core dispute: whether self-defense is constituted

Copy code
Evidence supporting self-defense:
├── Evidence 2 (Zhao’s stable post-retraction confession) — medium probative value
├── Evidence 5 (Zhou’s testimony, but interested) — relatively low
└── Evidence 6 (surveillance shows Qian first pushing) — medium (critical period blurred)

Evidence opposing self-defense:
├── Evidence 1 (Zhao’s first guilty confession) — legality in doubt; may be excluded
└── Evidence 3 (victim states Zhao struck first) — contradicts surveillance; value reduced

Neutral evidence:
└── Evidence 4 (Sun’s testimony) — need to confirm Sun’s specific description of “who struck first”

4.3 Key contradiction analysis

Copy code
Contradiction 1: Victim statement vs. surveillance video
- Victim claims Zhao struck first without cause
- Surveillance shows Qian first pushed
- Analysis: Objective evidence (surveillance) generally prevails over party statements
- Conclusion: Credibility of the victim’s statement on “who struck first” is reduced

Contradiction 2: Zhao’s first confession vs. post-retraction confession
- First confession admits intentional injury
- After retraction, claims self-defense
- Analysis: Legality of the first confession is in doubt; post-retraction confession partly matches surveillance
- Conclusion: If the first confession is excluded, the post-retraction confession combined with surveillance has some credibility

Contradiction 3: Witness Sun vs. witness Zhou (assuming differences)
- Need concrete comparison of their descriptions of key facts
- Sun is disinterested; preferential probative value
- Zhou is interested; relatively low value

V. Overall evaluation conclusions

VI. Key issues and recommendations

VII. Risk warnings

Copy code
1. [Risk of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence] If Zhao’s first confession is excluded, the prosecuting authority loses its only guilty confession
   and must rely entirely on other evidence to prove the criminal facts.

2. [Risk regarding self-defense findings] Surveillance shows Qian first pushed Zhao; if that fact is found,
   the premise for self-defense exists. But even if unlawful infringement is found,
   whether striking the head with a beer bottle causing serious injury constitutes excessive defense remains a key dispute.

3. [Risk regarding the standard of proof] Criminal cases apply “beyond reasonable doubt.”
   On the key fact of “who struck first,” existing evidence is contradictory
   and may fail to exclude the reasonable doubt that “Qian first committed an unlawful infringement.”

4. [Sentencing impact] Even if self-defense is not found, if the victim is found at fault (struck first),
   sentencing may still be affected.

5. [Overall assessment] Evidence is sufficient on the criminal conduct and injury result,
   but there is major dispute on subjective intent and self-defense;
   the final conclusion highly depends on:
   (a) the legality review outcome of the first confession
   (b) content of the surveillance after technical enhancement
   (c) witness Sun’s testimony on the core facts

Appendix: Quick Reference Card

Quick Lookup Table for Three-Attribute (三性) Review of Evidence

Copy code
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│         Evidentiary Validity Evaluation Quick Lookup        │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                               │
│  Step 1: Confirm litigation type → Select evidence-rule system │
│  Step 2: Clarify facts to be proved → Allocate burden of proof │
│  Step 3: Determine the standard of proof                           │
│                                               │
│  Item-by-item review:                                    │
│  ┌─ Authenticity: Original? Untampered? Content credible?            │
│  ├─ Legality: Subject? Procedure? Form? Illegal exclusion?         │
│  ├─ Relevance: Logical link to the fact to be proved? Degree?         │
│  └─ Probative value: Type-specific rules? Reinforcement needed?                │
│                                               │
│  Comprehensive judgment:                                    │
│  ┌─ Corroboration / contradiction among items                       │
│  ├─ Completeness of the evidence chain                              │
│  ├─ Whether the standard of proof is met                           │
│  └─ Reinforcement recommendations                                  │
│                                               │
│  ⚠️ Fatal checks:                                │
│  □ Is the litigation type correct?                          │
│  □ Is the standard of proof correct?                          │
│  □ Has illegally obtained evidence been screened?                        │
│  □ Has the burden of proof been clarified?                          │
│  □ Has lone evidence been flagged?                            │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘