thuyran Chinese source (authoritative):
../../skills/evidence-evaluation/SKILL.md
Evidentiary Validity Evaluation
Overview Table
| Item | Content |
|---|---|
| Capability name | Evidentiary Validity Evaluation |
| Capability ID | 12 |
| Core function | Assess evidence authenticity, legality, relevance, and probative value |
| Applicable domains | Civil litigation, criminal litigation, administrative litigation, arbitration |
| Key legal sources | Provisions on evidence in the Civil Procedure Law, Criminal Procedure Law, and Administrative Litigation Law, and their respective judicial interpretations; Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation (2019 Amendment); evidence chapters of the Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China; Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning Evidence in Administrative Litigation |
| Output | Evidentiary validity evaluation report (including item-by-item conclusions, overall probative-value judgment, and reinforcement recommendations) |
| Risk level | High (evidence evaluation directly affects fact-finding and outcomes) |
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:
- Evidence evaluation depends heavily on specific case facts and examination of originals/original objects; AI cannot directly perceive physical evidence
- Authenticity determinations often require courtroom cross-examination, expert examination, and similar procedures; AI evaluation is preliminary analysis only
- Evidence rules and standards of proof differ substantially across litigation types (civil / criminal / administrative)
- 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
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
| Litigation type | Statutory types of evidence | Legal basis |
|---|---|---|
| Civil litigation | Party statements, documentary evidence, physical evidence, audiovisual materials, electronic data, witness testimony, expert opinions, inspection records | Art. 66, Civil Procedure Law |
| Criminal litigation | Physical evidence, documentary evidence, witness testimony, victim statements, confessions and defenses of criminal suspects/defendants, expert opinions, records of inspection/examination/identification/investigative experiments, etc., audiovisual materials/electronic data | Art. 50, Criminal Procedure Law |
| Administrative litigation | Documentary evidence, physical evidence, audiovisual materials, electronic data, witness testimony, party statements, expert opinions, inspection records / on-site records | Art. 33, Administrative Litigation Law |
1.3 Standards of Proof
| Standard of proof | Applicable scenarios | Specific requirements |
|---|---|---|
| Beyond reasonable doubt | Conviction in criminal cases (prosecution’s burden) | Evidence is reliable and sufficient; reasonable doubt is excluded; evidence used for adjudication has been verified as true through statutory procedures; all case evidence forms a complete system of proof |
| High degree of probability | Ordinary facts in civil cases | The probative value of one party’s evidence is clearly greater than the other’s; the judge is inwardly convinced that the probability the fact exists exceeds the probability it does not (commonly understood as above ~75%) |
| Elevated standard of proof | Civil matters such as fraud, coercion, malicious collusion, oral wills, gifts, etc. | Higher than high degree of probability; below beyond reasonable doubt but clearly above the ordinary civil standard |
| Preponderance of evidence | Procedural facts and similar matters in civil cases | Relatively greater probative value is sufficient |
| Clear preponderance | Administrative litigation (agency’s burden) | Evidence of the legality of the administrative act should meet a clear-preponderance standard |
1.4 Allocation of the Burden of Proof
| Litigation type | General rule | Special rules |
|---|---|---|
| Civil litigation | “He who asserts must prove” (Art. 67, Civil Procedure Law) | Reversal of the burden of proof (e.g., medical harm, environmental pollution, product liability); legal presumptions |
| Criminal litigation | In public prosecutions, the prosecuting authority bears the burden of proof | Burden shifting in special offenses such as possessing a huge amount of property from unidentified sources; the defendant bears limited rebuttal responsibility |
| Administrative litigation | The defendant (administrative agency) bears the burden of proving the legality of the administrative act | The plaintiff bears the burden on standing/conditions for suit, damages claimed, etc. |
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:
- 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
- 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
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
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
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
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
| Assessment factor | High probative value | Low probative value |
|---|---|---|
| Medium / form | Original | Copy (cannot be checked against original) |
| Maker | State organs, notarial institutions | Privately made |
| Manner of formation | Formed in the ordinary course of business | Made specifically for litigation |
| Nature of content | Statements adverse to the maker | Statements favorable to the maker |
| Signatures / seals | Complete signature, seal, and date | No signature or signature in doubt |
7.2 Witness testimony — probative value rules
| Assessment factor | High probative value | Low probative value |
|---|---|---|
| Mode of perception | Personal perception | Hearsay / speculation / comment |
| Interest | No interest in relation to the parties | Interest with one party |
| Appearance in court | Appeared and submitted to cross-examination | Written testimony only, no appearance |
| Cognitive capacity | Normal cognition, memory, and expression | Limited capacity (young age, mental disorder, etc.) |
| Consistency | Consistent statements over time | Contradictions or repeated changes |
| Level of detail | Rich and specific detail | Vague and general |
7.3 Electronic data — probative value rules
| Assessment factor | High probative value | Low probative value |
|---|---|---|
| Preservation method | Notarial preservation / blockchain preservation / original records of a third-party platform | Printed screenshots |
| Integrity | Complete data chain (generation–storage–transmission–extraction) | Fragmented excerpts lacking context |
| Anti-tampering | Hash verification / timestamp | Cannot prove absence of tampering |
| Extraction procedure | Extracted lawfully by a professional institution | Extracted by the party themselves |
| Proof of linkage | Can link to a specific subject (e.g., real-name authentication) | Cannot confirm the user’s identity |
7.4 Expert opinions — probative value rules
| Assessment factor | High probative value | Low probative value |
|---|---|---|
| Expert institution | Statutory qualification, good reputation | Qualification in doubt or examination beyond scope |
| Expert | Corresponding professional competence and practice qualification | Unqualified or recusal grounds exist |
| Examined materials | Clear source, complete chain of custody | Unclear source or broken chain of custody |
| Methodology | National standards or industry-recognized methods | Nonstandard or outdated methods |
| Process | Complete records, reproducible verification | Missing process records |
| Formulation of conclusion | Clear and specific | Vague or overly conditional |
7.5 Party statements — probative value rules
| Assessment factor | High probative value | Low probative value |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of content | Adverse to the stating party (admission) | Favorable to the stating party |
| Consistency | Consistent over time | Contradictory over time |
| Corroboration | Corroborated by other evidence | Lone evidence, no corroboration |
| Specificity | Concrete and detailed | Vague or evasive |
Step 8: Analysis of corroboration among items of evidence
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
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
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
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
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
| Rule | Legal basis | Core content |
|---|---|---|
| Documentary evidence submission | Arts. 47–49, Civil Evidence Provisions | Where a party controlling documentary evidence refuses without justified reason to produce it, the court may find the opposing party’s claim established |
| Admission (自认) | Arts. 3–9, Civil Evidence Provisions | One party’s admission of an adverse fact relieves the other of the burden of proof; in joint actions, one person’s admission does not automatically bind others |
| Evidence preservation | Art. 84, Civil Procedure Law | Where evidence may be destroyed or become difficult to obtain later, preservation may be applied for |
| Time limit for producing evidence | Arts. 51–56, Civil Evidence Provisions | Legal consequences of late submission (admonition, fine; exclusion is not lightly applied) |
| Electronic data rules | Arts. 14–15, Civil Evidence Provisions | Scope of electronic data and factors for authenticity review |
| Evidence formed abroad | Art. 16, Civil Evidence Provisions | Evidence formed outside the territory should go through notarization and authentication formalities |
3.2 Criminal Litigation Evidence Rules
| Rule | Legal basis | Core content |
|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of illegally obtained evidence | Art. 56, Criminal Procedure Law; Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Strict Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases | Confessions obtained by torture are absolutely excluded; illegal real evidence is subject to discretionary exclusion |
| Reliable and sufficient evidence standard | Art. 55, Criminal Procedure Law | Facts for conviction and sentencing are all proved by evidence; evidence used for adjudication has been verified as true through statutory procedures; considering all evidence, reasonable doubt is excluded |
| Witness appearance | Arts. 252–256, Criminal Procedure Law Interpretation | Where the prosecutor, party, or defender objects to witness testimony that has major impact on conviction or sentencing, the witness shall appear |
| Evidence standard in death-penalty cases | Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Examining and Judging Evidence in Death-Penalty Cases | Death-penalty cases apply the strictest evidence standards |
| Technical investigation evidence | Art. 152, Criminal Procedure Law | Materials collected through technical investigation may be used as evidence, subject to approval |
| Curing defective evidence | Related articles of the Criminal Procedure Law Interpretation | Evidence with collection-procedure defects that can be cured or reasonably explained may be used |
3.3 Administrative Litigation Evidence Rules
| Rule | Legal basis | Core content |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant’s burden of proof | Art. 34, Administrative Litigation Law | The defendant bears the burden of proving the legality of the administrative act |
| Limits on defendant evidence collection | Art. 35, Administrative Litigation Law | The defendant may not, during litigation, on its own collect evidence from the plaintiff or witnesses |
| Defendant’s time limit for producing evidence | Art. 67, Administrative Litigation Law | The defendant shall submit evidence within 15 days of receiving a copy of the complaint |
| Court investigation for evidence | Art. 40, Administrative Litigation Law | The court may obtain evidence from relevant administrative agencies and other organizations or citizens |
| Review of normative documents | Art. 53, Administrative Litigation Law | Normative documents below the level of rules may be reviewed incidentally |
3.4 Special Rules for Particular Types of Evidence
| Type of evidence | Key rules | Points of attention |
|---|---|---|
| Notarial instruments | Notarized instruments have preferential probative value, unless contrary evidence is sufficient to overturn them | Check whether notarial procedure was lawful; whether the notarial certificate remains valid |
| Evidence formed abroad | Must be notarized by the competent notarial authority of the place of formation and authenticated by the Chinese embassy or consulate there | Special rules apply to evidence from Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan |
| Audiovisual materials | Doubtful audiovisual materials cannot alone serve as the basis for finding facts | Check lawful acquisition; whether technical examination has been conducted |
| Electronic data | Review integrity and reliability of generation, storage, transmission, and extraction | Note the probative-value difference between original platform records and screenshots |
| Expert-assistant opinions | Expert assistants appear to opine on expert opinions or specialized issues | Not a statutory type of evidence, but may affect whether expert opinions are accepted |
IV. Verification and Screening Rules
4.1 Admissibility Screening (Threshold Review)
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:
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:
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
## 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
# 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
| Level | Symbol | Meaning | Typical situations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Very high | ★★★★★ | All three attributes are beyond doubt; strong probative value | Original official documentary evidence issued by a state organ; notarized original contract; original bank transaction records |
| Relatively high | ★★★★☆ | Three attributes basically beyond doubt; relatively strong probative value | Signed/sealed original documentary evidence; disinterested witness who appeared and was cross-examined; expert opinion from a qualified institution |
| Medium | ★★★☆☆ | Some defects that can be cured; ordinary probative value | Copy corroborated by other evidence; written testimony of a witness who did not appear for justified reasons; evidence with cured procedural defects |
| Relatively low | ★★☆☆☆ | Clear defects; weak probative value | Copy that cannot be checked against the original; interested-witness testimony; electronic-data screenshots of unclear origin |
| Very low | ★☆☆☆☆ | Serious problems in the three attributes; basically no probative value | Suspected forged evidence; illegally obtained evidence; evidence unrelated to the fact to be proved |
6.2 Confidence for Overall Conclusions
| Level | Meaning | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Certain | Evaluation conclusion highly reliable | Legal rules are clear; evidence situation is clear; little room for dispute |
| Relatively certain | Evaluation conclusion fairly reliable | Main bases are clear, but some factors require judicial discretion |
| Ordinary | Evaluation conclusion has some reference value | Involves more subjective judgment; different judges may find differently |
| Uncertain | Evaluation conclusion for reference only | Evidence situation is complex; multiple reasonable explanations exist; conclusion may change with new evidence |
| Highly uncertain | Low reliability of evaluation conclusion | Key information missing; effective evaluation not possible; recommend re-evaluation after supplementation |
VII. Common Errors and Prevention
7.1 Fatal Error Table
| ID | Error type | Description | Consequences | Prevention |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-01 | Confusing evidence rules across litigation types | Applying civil evidence rules to a criminal case, or vice versa | Evaluation conclusions wholly wrong; may cause serious legal consequences | Before evaluation, confirm litigation type and apply the corresponding evidence-rule system |
| F-02 | Confusing standards of proof | Applying “beyond reasonable doubt” in a civil case, or “high degree of probability” in a criminal case | Wrong findings on facts to be proved | Clearly label the applicable standard and judge conclusions against it |
| F-03 | Omitting exclusion-of-illegal-evidence review | Failing to identify illegally obtained evidence that should be excluded | Inadmissible evidence pollutes the overall conclusion | Conduct legality review for every item; pay special attention to collection means and procedure |
| F-04 | Ignoring burden-of-proof allocation | Misidentifying who bears the burden, leading to favorable findings for the party with insufficient evidence | Directional error in fact-finding | Before evaluation, clarify burden allocation for each fact to be proved |
| F-05 | Conflating evidentiary competence with probative value | Assessing probative value of evidence that lacks competence (is inadmissible) | Confused logic; unreliable conclusions | Strictly follow “competence first, then probative value” |
| F-06 | Lone-evidence adjudication | Finding key facts on a single item without checking need for reinforcement | Violates reinforcement rules; unreliable conclusions | Always check for reinforcing evidence on key facts, especially in criminal cases |
| F-07 | Ignoring the temporal dimension of evidence | Failing to review the relationship between when evidence was formed and when case facts occurred | May admit post-hoc fabricated or unrelated evidence | Place evidence on the case timeline and review temporal reasonableness |
7.2 Common Traps
| ID | Trap description | How to identify | Response strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| T-01 | Copy trap: party submits only a copy, claiming the original is lost | Check for records of checking against the original; whether there is a reasonable loss explanation | Review whether the copy is corroborated by other evidence; warn that a copy alone cannot serve as the basis for adjudication |
| T-02 | Electronic-data screenshot trap: only chat screenshots rather than original data | Check for complete conversational context; whether notarized preservation was done | Recommend providing original electronic data or complete notarized records; lower the probative-value level in assessment |
| T-03 | Expert-opinion authority trap: over-relying on expert opinions without reviewing their foundation | Check institution qualification, expert qualification, material source, and methodology | Conduct full review of expert opinions; do not relax standards because of “professionalism” |
| T-04 | Admission-withdrawal trap: a party admits then tries to withdraw | Check whether withdrawal was agreed by the other side; whether there is sufficient evidence that the admission is inconsistent with facts | Strictly apply admission rules; review whether withdrawal conditions are met |
| T-05 | Hidden witness interest: witness appears disinterested but has concealed interest ties | Deeply review the witness’s relationship with the parties (relatives, friends, colleagues, business partners, etc.) | Fully investigate the witness’s background; lower probative value where interest may exist |
| T-06 | Post-act evidence collection in administrative litigation: agency supplements evidence during litigation | Check whether evidence was formed before the administrative act | Evidence collected by the agency during litigation generally cannot support the legality of the administrative act |
| T-07 | Evidence ambush: a party suddenly submits new evidence at hearing | Check whether within the proof time limit; whether it qualifies as “new evidence” | Review whether late-production exceptions apply; whether the other side has an adequate chance to cross-examine |
| T-08 | Selective production: party submits only favorable evidence and conceals unfavorable evidence | Review completeness of evidence; whether there are obvious information gaps | Flag possible concealment risk; recommend applying for court investigation or requiring the other side to produce |
VIII. Special Scenario Handling
8.1 Exclusion Procedure for Illegally Obtained Evidence
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
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
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
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 informat
…(truncated)