A Comparative Study on Procedural Adjudication —Procedure for Excluding Illegal Evidence as an Example

Abstract

Procedural adjudication involves resolving disputes and making decisions about the proper application and adherence to these procedural rules, rather than determining guilt or innocence. In criminal procedural law across various jurisdictions, the exclusionary rule is managed through a distinction between substantive adjudication, which addresses the facts and legal issues of guilt, and procedural adjudication, which focuses on trial processes and evidence handling. Substantive rules define illegal evidence, such as evidence obtained through torture or constitutional violations, to ensure trial integrity and protect defendant rights. Procedural rules detail the steps for challenging evidence admissibility. Globally, these principles are applied in both common law and civil law systems, with a universal recognition of the defendant's right to a fair trial and the prosecution's burden to prove evidence legality. This paper compares the approaches of the U.S., UK, and Germany, highlighting the diversity and convergence in their methods. The U.S. follows a principle-driven approach with strict rules, the UK allows judicial discretion under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE), and Germany uses specific statutory provisions with less judicial discretion. The study reflects the broader differences in legal philosophy and procedures between common law and civil law systems, illustrating a universal commitment to justice and human rights through the evolving rules and practices of illegal evidence exclusion in criminal procedural law.