There are many provisions on the use of evidence in China's evidence system, but because the provisions are abstract and scattered, systematic and standardized, people's understanding is vague and different.

(a) the objective facts and legal facts in the verification. "Verification is true" is the basic principle of evidence application. However, in judicial practice, whether the verified "facts" refer to "objective facts" or "legal facts" puzzles judicial practice. The author believes that the objective facts of a case refer to the essential elements of the case and their internal relations; The legal facts of a case refer to the elements that constitute a criminal case and the relationship between them as stipulated in the Criminal Law and the Criminal Procedure Law. In short, the objective facts of the case are the internal relations of the case, and the case handlers cannot fully understand them; The legal facts of the case are the basis for finalizing the case, and the case handlers must obtain them. When the main criminal facts in a case have been ascertained and other minor criminal facts cannot be ascertained, the case-handling personnel may ignore the unidentified part, and if they cannot be convicted according to the ascertained part, they shall file a case for investigation. [1] (p7) It can be seen that the principle of verifying the truth with evidence requires, on the one hand, that the objective facts must be respected and the truth of the case must be discovered; On the other hand, the process of proof is the application process of transforming objective facts into legal facts. Only by verifying some objective facts according to the types, forms and requirements stipulated by law and making them legal truth can they play a role in proving cases.

(2) Confession and zero confession rule. Confessionism, also known as confession complex, means that in judicial practice, investigators attach importance to confession and despise other evidence. It is manifested in believing in a confession and making a hasty decision even if there is no other verifiable evidence; On the contrary, we dare not make a final decision without a confession, or even "no confession, no record". Confession is one of the main reasons that lead to the violation of criminal suspects' personal rights.

The rule of "zero confession" comes from the rule of "zero confession for chief prosecutor in handling cases" promulgated by Shuncheng District People's Procuratorate of Fushun City, Liaoning Province in 2000. The spirit of this rule shows that when the investigation organ transfers a case including the confession of a criminal suspect to the procuratorial organ for examination and approval of prosecution, the prosecutor should regard the confession as zero, and then judge whether the criminal suspect has criminal facts or not according to the analysis of other evidence of the case. [2]

Obviously, confession doctrine violates the principle of "emphasizing evidence and not trusting confession", and "zero confession" is not the embodiment of the principle that a case can be finalized without sufficient evidence such as the defendant's population confession. Because zero confession ignores the role of confession in front of confession, or it can be obtained, it completely rejects confession and abandons confession. If the case handlers take the "zero confession" rule as a guide and weaken the role of confession to the point where it is not used, they will not be able to complete the litigation task. Of course, this practice is not the value choice of litigation benefit. Therefore, in practice, we can neither advocate "confession" nor engage in "zero confession".

(3) There is no doubt that it is lighter and more dependent. Suspected crime refers to whether a criminal suspect or defendant commits a crime, which can neither prove that he has it nor prove that he has it. In view of this situation, in practice, the third paragraph of Article 162 of the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates: "If the evidence is insufficient, the defendant cannot be found guilty, and if the evidence is insufficient, the accused crime cannot be established, the acquittal will be made." That is, take the practice of never being mysterious; In the investigation stage, some people "hang" on the side, not closing the case, not prosecuting, not withdrawing the case. The reasons for the above problems are, in the final analysis, the problems of evidence: first, the criminal evidence in the sense of substantive law is really insufficient, so it is impossible to carry out proof activities; Second, it is related to the understanding and application of the proof standard of "sufficient evidence" in criminal proceedings. Here I analyze the second reason. In judicial practice, different understandings of the standard of proof may lead to different results of the same case. In fact, the standard of "really sufficient" evidence in specific cases is not a question of "yes" or "no", but a question of reasonable degree. If each case can be comprehensively measured by specific standards in combination with its specific conditions, the number of cases in doubt in practice will be greatly reduced. Even if there are suspicious cases, the legitimacy and accuracy of never handling or lightly handling will be higher, and the same facts will not have completely different or completely opposite results in the process of legal adaptation, and unnecessary disputes will be greatly reduced. Of course, "suspense leaving the case" is not desirable, because giving up the burden of proof is judicial dereliction of duty.

(4) Defects in the effectiveness of witness testimony. One of the disadvantages in the application of witness testimony is that witnesses are not summoned to testify in court, and often only one "excerpt" is read in court, which makes it difficult to judge whether the testimony is false or not. When the witness's testimony is difficult to distinguish between true and false, the witness can't clarify it in person, which seriously affects the evidential effectiveness of the testimony. Although every case in judicial practice has more or less witness testimony, due to the low proportion of witnesses appearing in court at present, the relevant legal provisions are ineffective, and the common types of evidence in criminal proceedings have greatly reduced their applicable effectiveness.