The exclusionary rule of illegal evidence has always been a focal point of attention in both academic and practical circles, but its application remains fraught with numerous issues. There are also exclusionary rules for illegal evidence in supervision cases. From the perspective of legal norms, the exclusion of illegal evidence in supervision cases shares both similarities and differences with ordinary criminal cases. Due to the inherent uniqueness of crimes involving abuse of power, applying the exclusionary rule to supervision cases presents several challenges. However, these challenges are not insurmountable. This article first analyzes the current status of the exclusion of illegal evidence in supervision cases at the normative level. It then discusses the difficulties of fully applying the exclusionary rule to supervision cases and finally proposes potential solutions for excluding illegal evidence in supervision cases. The aim is to offer insights and references for the study of excluding illegal evidence in supervision cases.

Wenting Zhang. Exclusion of Illegal Evidence in Supervision Cases. International Journal of Frontiers in Sociology (2023), Vol. 5, Issue 11: 78-84. https://doi.org/10.25236/IJFS.2023.051113.

[1] Zhang Shuo. The System of Excluding Illegal Evidence in Supervision Cases: Legal Deconstruction and Practical Paths. Political and Legal Forum, 2020, (2): 117-128.

[2] Wu Hongqi. Legal Interpretation of the Systematization of Evidence Law. Legal Studies, 2019, (5): 157-172.

[3] Wang Haiyan. Trial Center and Supervision System Reform: A Perspective on the Evidence System. Xinjiang Social Sciences, 2018, (3): 118-124.

[4] Ma Fang, Wu Tong. Logic and Judiciary: Deconstruction and Construction of Evidence Rules in Supervision Procedures. Hebei Law Science, 2018, (9): 50-66.

[5] Bai Rongjing, Wang Yutong. Examination of the Legislative Mode of Excluding Illegal Evidence in Supervision Investigations and Criminal Investigations. Journal of Shanghai Institute of Political Science and Law (Rule of Law Series), 2021, (4): 156-169.

[6] Zheng Xi. On the Application of Exclusion of Illegal Evidence Rules to Cases Handled by Supervisory Committees. Evidence Science, 2018, (5): 37-45.

[7] Xie Chao. The Legal Impact of the "Supervision Law" on China's Characteristic Anti-Corruption Work. Legal Journal, 2018, (3): 48-62.

[8] Zheng Xi. Research on Investigation and Interrogation Procedures. Beijing: Peking University Press; 2015: 194.

[9] Zhang Baosheng. Excluding Illegal Evidence and the Rule of Testimony by Investigative and Prosecutorial Personnel. Criminal Science, 2017, (4): 30-39.

[10] Kong Lingyong. Exceptional Pattern of Exclusion of Illegal Evidence: Dogmatic Analysis of Exclusion Rules for Repeated Confessions. The Jurist, 2019, (6): 142-156, 195.

[11] Ma Mingliang. The Structural Predicament of the Exclusion Rule of Illegal Evidence—Reflection Based on an Internal Perspective. Modern Law Science, 2015, 37(4): 184-193.

[12] Liu Yanhong. On Examination and Elimination of Illegal Evidence in Duty-related Crime Cases. Law Review, 2019, (1): 172-183.

[13] Chen Weidong. Research on Some Issues of Criminal Investigation and Investigation Procedure. Political and Legal Studies, 2018, (1): 19-27.

[14] Chen Ruihua. On Investigation-Centeredness. Political and Legal Forum, 2017, (2): 68-75.

[15] Shen Deyong. The Essential Positioning of the "Trial-Centered" Judicial System: The Learning and Practice Journal, 2016, (8): 81-86.

[16] Wu Hongyao. The Rules and Effectiveness of Excluding Illegal Evidence—Discussion on the Improvement of China's Rules on Excluding Illegal Evidence. Modern Law Science, 2014, (4): 121-130.

[17] Xie Dengke. The Use of Supervision Evidence in Criminal Proceedings—Discussion on the Understanding and Application of Article 33 of the "Supervision Law". Journal of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, 2018, (5): 122-128.

[18] Feng Junwei. Evidence Connection Issues in the Implementation of the "Supervision Law". Administrative Law Research, 2019, (6): 85-95.

[19] Shen Deyong. On the Reform of the Trial-Centered Judicial System. Chinese Law Studies, 2015, (3): 5-19.