Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chaper VI. Continental-type evidence systems today
›
6.4. The German model
›
6.4.2. Characteristics of the status of the debtor

6.4.2. Characteristics of the status of the debtor

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

A characteristic feature of the “strict” method of regulation in the former USSR legal system was that if the accused was not warned by the prosecuting authority of his right to remain silent, his statement could not be taken into account as evidence at all. This was confirmed by the decision of the Regional Court of Celle, which stated that “the police officers very often breach the duty to instruct, and the consequence of such an illegality can only be a prohibition of admissibility.”1 It is a different matter that, on appeal, the Federal Supreme Court has already modified the decision to the extent that it has stated that the legal consequences of failure to instruct are always determined by the specific circumstances. Thus, for example, “if the suspect otherwise knows his rights or does not object in the presence of his lawyer to the recording of a statement made despite the failure to warn”, this does not preclude its use.2

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

It is important to note that in German jurisprudence, a “spontaneous confession” is now given special legal effect: if the accused admits his criminal responsibility to a member of the investigating authority or the prosecutor before his formal interrogation, the members of the authority can later confirm this by testimony.3 (In such cases, therefore, the accused’s statement “comes back” in the trial record not as his own testimony, but as the content of various witness statements.)

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The basic obligations of the accused under the StPO are limited to merely attending the procedural steps and tolerating coercive measures (otherwise he is not obliged to actively participate in the investigation of the offence). His freedom of expression cannot be interfered with during the procedural steps and the use of prohibited interrogation methods is prohibited as a general rule. Such methods include, in particular, the wearing out of the accused; the use of various drugs; torture; deception; coercion; the promise of unlawful advantages; the use of polygraphs, etc. 4

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The procedure for interviewing suspects includes the following points:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • disclosure of the suspicion and its legal basis;
  • providing information on the right to refuse to testify;
  • providing information on the right to a lawyer;
  • questioning on personal circumstances;
  • questioning on the facts (during which the suspect must be given the opportunity to rebut the facts of the allegation);
  • training on the right to make a request for evidence.5
1 Tóth (1995) ibid. 217.
2 Tóth (1995) ibid. 219.
3 Tóth (1995) ibid. 219.
4 Herke (2011) ibid. 34–35.
5 Herke (2011) ibid. 33.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave