evidence-evaluation

name

evidence-evaluation

description

Trigger this skill when evidence materials in a case need to be assessed for authenticity, legality, and relevance (the “three attributes” of evidence / 三性), as well as for probative value. Typical trigger scenarios include, but are not limited to: - After a party or counsel submits evidence, assessing whether the court is likely to admit it - Responding to and analyzing the opposing party’s cross-examination / challenge opinions on one’s own evidence - Conducting a comprehensive evaluation of all evidence in the case to determine whether facts to be proved are established - Determining whether evidence meets the applicable standard of proof (e.g., high degree of probability, beyond reasonable doubt) - Identifying weak links in the chain of evidence and proposing reinforcement recommendations - Assessing the validity of special forms of evidence such as electronic data, expert opinions, and witness testimony - Identifying and arguing exclusion of illegally obtained evidence

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:

1. Evidence evaluation depends heavily on specific case facts and examination of originals/original objects; AI cannot directly perceive physical evidence
2. Authenticity determinations often require courtroom cross-examination, expert examination, and similar procedures; AI evaluation is preliminary analysis only
3. Evidence rules and standards of proof differ substantially across litigation types (civil / criminal / administrative)
4. 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

---

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 information about the evidence and the necessity of preservation
- Security may be required

8.5 Handling Contradictory Evidence

Types of contradiction and handling methods:

1. Same witness’s contradictory statements over time
   → Review reasons for change; take hearing statements as controlling (unless reasonably explained)
   → Lower the overall probative value of that witness’s testimony

2. Contradictions among different witnesses’ testimony
   → Review each witness’s conditions of perception, interests, and cognitive capacity
   → Apply preferential probative-value rules to decide acceptance or rejection
   → Where necessary, apply for confrontation among witnesses

3. Contradiction between documentary evidence and witness testimony
   → Documentary evidence generally has greater probative value than witness testimony
   → But authenticity and formation background of the documentary evidence must still be reviewed

4. Contradiction among expert opinions (multiple examinations)
   → Review materials, methods, and expert qualifications for each examination
   → Where necessary, apply for re-examination or supplemental examination
   → The court may organize experts to appear for cross-examination

5. Contradiction between party statements and objective evidence
   → Objective evidence (physical, documentary, electronic data, etc.) generally prevails over party statements
   → Contradiction with objective evidence may affect the credibility of the party’s statements as a whole

---

IX. Quality Checklists

9.1 Pre-Evaluation Checklist

□ Has the litigation type (civil / criminal / administrative) been confirmed?
□ Has the applicable evidence-rule system been confirmed?
□ Have all facts to be proved been clarified?
□ Has the burden of proof been correctly allocated?
□ Has the applicable standard of proof been determined?
□ Has information on all evidence materials to be evaluated been collected?
□ Have the disputed focuses of the case been understood?

9.2 In-Evaluation Checklist

□ Has every item undergone three-attribute (三性) review?
□ Has evaluation strictly followed “competence first, then probative value”?
□ Have special review rules for different types of evidence been observed?
□ Has the possibility of excluding illegally obtained evidence been reviewed?
□ Have corroboration and contradiction among items been analyzed?
□ Has completeness of the evidence chain been assessed?
□ Has attention been paid to evidence needing reinforcement?
□ Have possible opposing cross-examination opinions been considered?
□ Have uncertain judgments been annotated with confidence levels?

9.3 Post-Evaluation Checklist

□ Are evaluation conclusions checked against the applicable standard of proof?
□ Is there a clear finding opinion for each fact to be proved?
□ Are confidence levels annotated for evaluation conclusions?
□ Have reinforcement recommendations been proposed?
□ Have major evidentiary risks been identified?
□ Is the output format complete and standardized?
□ Are there logical contradictions or omissions?
□ Has the limitation of AI evaluation been disclosed?
□ Has review by professionals been recommended?

---

X. Complete Examples

Example One: Simple Scenario — Evaluation of Evidence in a Private Lending Dispute

Case Background

Plaintiff Zhang sued defendant Li in a private lending dispute, alleging that on 15 March 2023 Li borrowed RMB 500,000 from Zhang, with an agreed annual interest rate of 12% and a one-year term, and that Li failed to repay when due.

Evidence Submitted by the Plaintiff

No.	Evidence name	Type of evidence	Form
Evidence 1	IOU / promissory note	Documentary evidence	Original
Evidence 2	Bank transfer record	Documentary evidence / electronic data	Original transaction details issued by the bank
Evidence 3	Screenshots of WeChat chat records	Electronic data	Printouts (not notarized)
Evidence 4	Written testimony of witness Wang	Witness testimony	Written testimony (witness did not appear)

Defendant’s Cross-Examination Opinions

• On Evidence 1: Admits authenticity of the signature on the IOU, but asserts that RMB 300,000 has already been repaid
• On Evidence 2: No objection
• On Evidence 3: Disputes authenticity; asserts screenshots may have been tampered with
• On Evidence 4: Disputes; witness did not appear, and Wang is the plaintiff’s colleague

Evaluation Process

I. Determine the evaluation framework

• Litigation type: Civil litigation
• Cause of action: Private lending dispute
• Applicable evidence rules: Civil Procedure Law and Civil Evidence Provisions
• Standard of proof: High degree of probability
• Burden of proof: Plaintiff bears the burden of proving establishment of the lending relationship and delivery of the loan; defendant bears the burden of proving repayment of RMB 300,000

II. Facts to be proved

No.	Fact to be proved	Party bearing burden
1	Existence of lending consensus (parties agreed on a RMB 500,000 loan, 12% annual interest, one-year term)	Plaintiff
2	Actual delivery of the loan (RMB 500,000 actually delivered to defendant)	Plaintiff
3	Defendant has repaid RMB 300,000	Defendant

III. Item-by-item evidence evaluation

---

Evidence 1: IOU (original)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	✅ Authentic	Defendant admits signature authenticity; IOU is an original; content includes complete elements of amount, interest rate, and term
Legality	✅ Lawful	Voluntarily signed by the parties; form lawful; content does not violate prohibitory rules; 12% annual rate does not exceed the statutory ceiling
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Directly proves existence of lending consensus; directly related to Fact 1
Probative value	High	Original documentary evidence; defendant admits signature authenticity; directly proves lending consensus
Confidence	★★★★★	Defendant’s admission of signature authenticity; original documentary evidence; extremely strong

---

Evidence 2: Bank transfer record (original)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	✅ Authentic	Original transaction details issued by the bank; defendant has no objection
Legality	✅ Lawful	Lawfully issued by the bank; form lawful
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Shows that on 15 March 2023 the plaintiff’s account transferred RMB 500,000 to the defendant’s account, consistent with the date and amount on the IOU; directly proves delivery
Probative value	High	Original record issued by a national financial institution; strong objectivity; high probative value
Confidence	★★★★★	Original bank record; defendant has no objection; extremely strong

---

Evidence 3: WeChat chat screenshots (printouts, not notarized)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	⚠️ In doubt	Only screenshot printouts; no notarial preservation; defendant disputes authenticity; tampering cannot be excluded; complete conversational context lacking
Legality	✅ Basically lawful	Ordinary communications between parties; manner of obtaining not unlawful
Relevance	✅ Indirect relevance	Chat content involves debt collection; related to the lending relationship, but is indirect evidence
Probative value	Low	Screenshot printouts are transmitted evidence; defendant disputes; not notarially preserved; cannot alone serve as the basis for finding facts
Confidence	★★☆☆☆	Authenticity in doubt; reinforcement needed

Reinforcement recommendations:

1. Recommend that the plaintiff provide original chat records on the phone and display them in court
2. Or apply for notarial preservation of the WeChat chat records
3. Or obtain original communication records from the WeChat operator (Tencent)

---

Evidence 4: Written testimony of witness Wang (witness did not appear)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	⚠️ In doubt	Witness did not appear for cross-examination; authenticity cannot be verified
Legality	⚠️ Defective	Defendant objects to the testimony; the witness should have appeared but did not; review whether there was a justified reason for non-appearance
Relevance	✅ Indirect relevance	Witness claims to have witnessed the lending process; related to facts to be proved
Probative value	Low	Witness is the plaintiff’s colleague (interest exists); did not appear; falls within types that cannot alone serve as the basis for finding facts (interested-witness testimony + non-appearing written testimony)
Confidence	★★☆☆☆	Two diminishing factors combined; relatively weak

Reinforcement recommendations:

1. Apply for witness Wang to appear and submit to cross-examination
2. If the witness truly cannot appear for justified reasons, submit supporting materials
3. Seek other disinterested witnesses

---

IV. Evidence-chain analysis

Fact 1 (lending consensus):

• Evidence 1 (original IOU): direct proof, high probative value ★★★★★
• Evidence 3 (WeChat screenshots): indirect corroboration, low ★★☆☆☆
• Evidence 4 (witness testimony): indirect corroboration, low ★★☆☆☆
• Conclusion: The original IOU already fully proves lending consensus; even without Evidence 3 and 4, Fact 1 meets the high-degree-of-probability standard. ✅ Fact established

Fact 2 (loan delivery):

• Evidence 2 (bank transfer record): direct proof, high ★★★★★
• Evidence 1 (IOU): indirect corroboration (IOUs are typically issued after receipt of funds)
• Conclusion: Bank transfer record and IOU corroborate each other; fully prove that RMB 500,000 was actually delivered. ✅ Fact established

Fact 3 (defendant has repaid RMB 300,000):

• Defendant asserts repayment of RMB 300,000 but submitted no evidence (e.g., transfer records, receipts)
• Burden rests on the defendant
• Conclusion: Defendant has not discharged the burden of proof. ❌ Fact not established (until defendant supplements evidence)

V. Overall evaluation conclusions

Fact to be proved	Finding	Confidence	Notes
Lending consensus exists	✅ Established	Certain	Original IOU + defendant’s admission of signature; evidence sufficient
RMB 500,000 loan delivered	✅ Established	Certain	Bank transfer record + IOU corroboration; evidence sufficient
Defendant has repaid RMB 300,000	❌ Not established (for now)	Relatively certain	Defendant has not produced evidence; watch whether defendant supplements within the proof time limit

VI. Reinforcement recommendations

Priority	Recommendation	Purpose	Feasibility
High	Notarially preserve WeChat chat records or display original records in court	Reinforce proof of debt-collection facts	High
Medium	Apply for witness Wang to appear	Enhance probative value of witness testimony	Medium
Low	Watch whether defendant submits evidence of RMB 300,000 repayment	Prepare rebuttal	—

VII. Risk warnings

1. Primary risk: Defendant may, within the proof time limit, supplement evidence of repayment of RMB 300,000 (e.g., transfer records); prepare a response plan in advance
2. Secondary risk: If WeChat chat records are not reinforced, they may not be admitted under strong challenge, but this does not affect core fact-finding
3. Overall assessment: Plaintiff’s core evidence (original IOU + bank transfer record) has strong probative value and a complete chain; likelihood of success is relatively high

---

Example Two: Complex Scenario — Evaluation of Evidence in a Criminal Case (Intentional Injury)

Case Background

The prosecuting authority charges that on the evening of 20 January 2024, at a bar, defendant Zhao quarreled with victim Qian over a trivial matter and struck Qian’s head with a beer bottle, causing Qian second-degree serious injury. After coming into custody, Zhao first confessed to the crime, then retracted and claimed self-defense (正当防卫).

Evidence Submitted by the Prosecuting Authority

No.	Evidence name	Type of evidence
Evidence 1	Defendant Zhao’s confession (first, guilty confession)	Confessions and defenses of the defendant
Evidence 2	Defendant Zhao’s confession (second and thereafter, retracted; claims self-defense)	Confessions and defenses of the defendant
Evidence 3	Victim Qian’s statement	Victim statement
Evidence 4	Testimony of witness Sun (bar server)	Witness testimony
Evidence 5	Testimony of witness Zhou (Zhao’s friend)	Witness testimony
Evidence 6	Bar surveillance video (partial; critical period footage blurred)	Audiovisual materials
Evidence 7	Forensic expert opinion (Qian’s injury is second-degree serious injury)	Expert opinion
Evidence 8	On-site inspection record and photographs	Inspection record
Evidence 9	Beer bottle (instrument of the offense)	Physical evidence
Evidence 10	Explanation of how Zhao came into custody	Documentary evidence

Issues Raised by the Defense

1. Zhao’s first confession was made after continuous interrogation exceeding 24 hours, suspected fatigue interrogation
2. Surveillance video shows Qian first pushed and shoved Zhao
3. Witness Zhou’s testimony supports Zhao’s claim of self-defense

Evaluation Process

I. Determine the evaluation framework

• Litigation type: Criminal litigation
• Charge: Intentional injury (causing serious injury)
• Applicable evidence rules: Criminal Procedure Law and Criminal Procedure Law Interpretation
• Standard of proof: Beyond reasonable doubt (evidence reliable and sufficient)
• Burden of proof: Prosecuting authority bears the burden of proving the criminal facts

II. Facts to be proved

No.	Fact to be proved	Party bearing burden	Importance
1	Zhao struck Qian’s head with a beer bottle	Prosecuting authority	Core
2	Zhao had intent to injure	Prosecuting authority	Core
3	Qian’s injury is second-degree serious injury	Prosecuting authority	Core
4	Causal link between Zhao’s conduct and Qian’s injury	Prosecuting authority	Core
5	Whether there was a premise for self-defense (Qian first committed an unlawful infringement)	Raised by defense; prosecuting authority must exclude	Key dispute
6	If defensive conduct existed, whether it exceeded necessary limits	Depends on circumstances	Key dispute

III. Item-by-item evidence evaluation

---

Evidence 1: Zhao’s first confession (guilty confession)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	⚠️ In doubt	Defendant has retracted; review whether content is corroborated by other evidence
Legality	⚠️ Seriously in doubt	Defense asserts continuous interrogation exceeding 24 hours, suspected fatigue interrogation. Under Art. 120 of the Criminal Procedure Law, summons or forced appearance shall not exceed 24 hours, and the suspect’s meals and necessary rest shall be guaranteed. Need to review: ① start and end times recorded in interrogation transcripts; ② contemporaneous audio-video recording (if any); ③ detention-facility entry/exit records; ④ explanations by interrogators
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Confession content directly concerns the criminal facts
Probative value	Pending	Depends on legality review outcome
Confidence	★★☆☆☆	Major legality doubts; resolve first

⚠️ Analysis of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence:

1. Review points:
   - Do times recorded in interrogation transcripts exceed the statutory limit?
   - Is there contemporaneous audio-video recording? Is it complete?
   - Were meals and rest guaranteed during interrogation?
   - Can the prosecuting authority prove lawful collection?

2. Legal application:
   - If fatigue interrogation is confirmed, the confession may be one collected by illegal methods
   - Under Art. 2 of the *Provisions on Several Issues Concerning Strict Exclusion of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Handling Criminal Cases*,
     confessions collected by illegal methods such as illegally restricting personal liberty shall be excluded
   - In judicial practice, fatigue interrogation is generally treated as a disguised illegal collection method

3. Preliminary judgment:
   - If the prosecuting authority cannot adequately prove interrogation legality, there is a substantial risk of exclusion
   - Even if not excluded, probative value is greatly reduced by retraction

---

Evidence 2: Zhao’s second and subsequent confessions (retracted; claims self-defense)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	⚠️ Needs comprehensive judgment	Retraction content must be checked against other evidence
Legality	✅ No illegality found	Confession after change of interrogators; procedure lawful
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Defense of self-defense is directly related to the core dispute
Probative value	Medium	Defendant’s defense needs corroboration; but if the first confession is excluded, stable post-retraction confessions have some reference value
Confidence	★★★☆☆	Judge comprehensively with other evidence

---

Evidence 3: Victim Qian’s statement

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	⚠️ Needs cautious assessment	As an interested party, the victim’s statement may be biased; review consistency over time and consistency with objective evidence
Legality	✅ Lawful	Lawfully obtained; procedure lawful
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Directly describes the incident process
Probative value	Medium-high	Victim personally experienced the incident, but note: ① victim claims Zhao struck first without cause, which may contradict surveillance (showing Qian first pushed); ② victim’s head injury may affect memory of details
Confidence	★★★☆☆	Check against surveillance and other objective evidence

Key contradiction: Victim’s statement that “Zhao struck first without cause” contradicts surveillance showing “Qian first pushed Zhao”—this is the core dispute.

---

Evidence 4: Testimony of witness Sun (bar server)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	✅ Relatively credible	Witness is bar staff who was present; no interest with either side
Legality	✅ Lawful	Lawfully collected; procedure lawful
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Eyewitness to the incident
Probative value	Relatively high	Disinterested third-party witness; but review: ① witness’s position and angle; ② whether who struck first could be clearly seen; ③ specific content of the testimony
Confidence	★★★★☆	Disinterested witness; relatively strong

Key information: Pay special attention to Sun’s description of the key fact of “who struck first.”

---

Evidence 5: Testimony of witness Zhou (Zhao’s friend)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	⚠️ Needs cautious assessment	Witness is the defendant’s friend; interest exists
Legality	✅ Lawful	Lawfully collected; procedure lawful
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Eyewitness; supports self-defense claim
Probative value	Relatively low	Testimony favorable to the defendant by an interested witness has relatively low probative value; cannot alone serve as the basis for finding facts
Confidence	★★☆☆☆	Interest lowers probative value, but corroboration by other evidence can strengthen it

---

Evidence 6: Bar surveillance video (partial; critical period footage blurred)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	✅ Basically authentic	Automatically recorded by the bar’s surveillance system; strong objectivity; but critical-period footage is blurred, affecting fact-finding
Legality	✅ Lawful	Public-place surveillance; lawfully obtained
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Records part of the incident process
Probative value	Medium	Objective evidence that should have high value, but limited by blur in the critical period. Identifiable content: shows Qian first pushing Zhao; blurred portion: specific process of Zhao striking with the bottle is insufficiently clear
Confidence	★★★☆☆	Some content clear; some blur must be combined with other evidence

Key finding: The identifiable portion shows Qian first pushing, which contradicts the victim’s claim that “Zhao struck first without cause” and supports the defense’s self-defense claim.

Recommendation: Apply for technical enhancement of the surveillance video to obtain clearer images.

---

Evidence 7: Forensic expert opinion (second-degree serious injury)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	✅ Authentic	Institution has statutory qualification; experts have practice qualifications
Legality	✅ Lawful	Entrustment procedure lawful; methodology complies with national standards
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Directly proves the injury result
Probative value	High	Forensic expert opinion; strong professionalism; standardized procedure
Confidence	★★★★★	Standardized examination procedure; clear conclusion

Review points confirmed:

• ✅ Expert institution: has judicial appraisal qualification
• ✅ Expert: has forensic clinical appraisal practice qualification
• ✅ Examined materials: the victim personally; clear source
• ✅ Appraisal standard: based on the Standards for Assessing the Degree of Human Injury
• ✅ Conclusion: clearly second-degree serious injury

---

Evidence 8: On-site inspection record and photographs

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	✅ Authentic	Made by investigators in accordance with law; bears witness signatures
Legality	✅ Lawful	Inspection procedure lawful; records complete
Relevance	✅ Relevant	Records on-site conditions related to case facts
Probative value	Relatively high	Objective record of on-site conditions
Confidence	★★★★☆	Inspection record with standardized procedure

---

Evidence 9: Beer bottle (instrument of the offense)

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	✅ Authentic	Lawfully extracted from the scene; extraction record and seizure inventory exist
Legality	✅ Lawful	Extraction and seizure procedure lawful
Relevance	✅ Direct relevance	Instrument of the offense; directly related to the injury conduct
Probative value	Relatively high	Physical evidence; strong objectivity; fingerprint identification would further raise value
Confidence	★★★★☆	Complete chain of custody

Recommendation: Confirm whether fingerprint extraction and comparison were conducted.

---

Evidence 10: Explanation of how the defendant came into custody

Review item	Evaluation conclusion	Analysis
Authenticity	✅ Authentic	Issued by the public security organ
Legality	✅ Lawful	Form lawful
Relevance	✅ Relevant	Related to how the defendant came into custody; may involve voluntary surrender findings
Probative value	Medium	Proves the custody process; reference value for sentencing
Confidence	★★★★☆	—

---

IV. Evidence-chain analysis and core disputes

4.1 Evidence chain for undisputed facts

Fact to be proved	Supporting evidence	Chain status	Conclusion
Zhao struck Qian’s head with a beer bottle	Evidence 1 (if not excluded), Evidence 2 (admits striking), Evidence 3, Evidence 4, Evidence 6 (partly visible), Evidence 9	Complete	✅ May be found
Qian’s injury is second-degree serious injury	Evidence 7	Complete	✅ May be found
Causation between Zhao’s conduct and the injury	Evidence 7 + Evidence 8 + Evidence 9	Complete	✅ May be found

4.2 Core dispute: whether self-defense is constituted

Evidence supporting self-defense:
├── Evidence 2 (Zhao’s stable post-retraction confession) — medium probative value
├── Evidence 5 (Zhou’s testimony, but interested) — relatively low
└── Evidence 6 (surveillance shows Qian first pushing) — medium (critical period blurred)

Evidence opposing self-defense:
├── Evidence 1 (Zhao’s first guilty confession) — legality in doubt; may be excluded
└── Evidence 3 (victim states Zhao struck first) — contradicts surveillance; value reduced

Neutral evidence:
└── Evidence 4 (Sun’s testimony) — need to confirm Sun’s specific description of “who struck first”

4.3 Key contradiction analysis

Contradiction 1: Victim statement vs. surveillance video
- Victim claims Zhao struck first without cause
- Surveillance shows Qian first pushed
- Analysis: Objective evidence (surveillance) generally prevails over party statements
- Conclusion: Credibility of the victim’s statement on “who struck first” is reduced

Contradiction 2: Zhao’s first confession vs. post-retraction confession
- First confession admits intentional injury
- After retraction, claims self-defense
- Analysis: Legality of the first confession is in doubt; post-retraction confession partly matches surveillance
- Conclusion: If the first confession is excluded, the post-retraction confession combined with surveillance has some credibility

Contradiction 3: Witness Sun vs. witness Zhou (assuming differences)
- Need concrete comparison of their descriptions of key facts
- Sun is disinterested; preferential probative value
- Zhou is interested; relatively low value

V. Overall evaluation conclusions

Fact to be proved	Finding	Confidence	Notes
Zhao struck Qian’s head with a bottle	✅ May be found	Certain	Multiple items consistently prove
Qian’s second-degree serious injury	✅ May be found	Certain	Forensic expert opinion is clear
Causation	✅ May be found	Certain	Evidence chain complete
Zhao had intent to injure	⚠️ Disputed	Uncertain	If self-defense is found, no intent to injure
Qian first committed an unlawful infringement	⚠️ Some supporting evidence	Uncertain	Surveillance shows Qian first pushing, but footage is blurred; judge comprehensively with Sun’s testimony
Whether defense was excessive	⚠️ Needs further analysis	Highly uncertain	Even if unlawful infringement is found, whether striking the head with a beer bottle causing serious injury exceeded necessary limits still requires argument

VI. Key issues and recommendations

Priority	Issue / recommendation	Purpose
Highest	Initiate exclusion of illegally obtained evidence; review legality of Zhao’s first confession	Determine whether it can serve as a basis for adjudication
Highest	Apply for technical enhancement of the surveillance video	Obtain clear images of the critical period
High	Apply for witness Sun to appear; focus questioning on “who struck first”	Obtain disinterested third-party testimony on the core dispute
High	Review contemporaneous audio-video of Zhao’s first confession	Verify whether fatigue interrogation occurred
Medium	Confirm whether Zhao’s fingerprints were extracted from the beer bottle	Reinforce linkage between physical evidence and the defendant
Medium	Review whether the bar has surveillance from other angles	Obtain a more complete record of the incident

VII. Risk warnings

1. [Risk of exclusion of illegally obtained evidence] If Zhao’s first confession is excluded, the prosecuting authority loses its only guilty confession
   and must rely entirely on other evidence to prove the criminal facts.

2. [Risk regarding self-defense findings] Surveillance shows Qian first pushed Zhao; if that fact is found,
   the premise for self-defense exists. But even if unlawful infringement is found,
   whether striking the head with a beer bottle causing serious injury constitutes excessive defense remains a key dispute.

3. [Risk regarding the standard of proof] Criminal cases apply “beyond reasonable doubt.”
   On the key fact of “who struck first,” existing evidence is contradictory
   and may fail to exclude the reasonable doubt that “Qian first committed an unlawful infringement.”

4. [Sentencing impact] Even if self-defense is not found, if the victim is found at fault (struck first),
   sentencing may still be affected.

5. [Overall assessment] Evidence is sufficient on the criminal conduct and injury result,
   but there is major dispute on subjective intent and self-defense;
   the final conclusion highly depends on:
   (a) the legality review outcome of the first confession
   (b) content of the surveillance after technical enhancement
   (c) witness Sun’s testimony on the core facts

---

Appendix: Quick Reference Card

Quick Lookup Table for Three-Attribute (三性) Review of Evidence

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│         Evidentiary Validity Evaluation Quick Lookup        │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│                                               │
│  Step 1: Confirm litigation type → Select evidence-rule system │
│  Step 2: Clarify facts to be proved → Allocate burden of proof │
│  Step 3: Determine the standard of proof                           │
│                                               │
│  Item-by-item review:                                    │
│  ┌─ Authenticity: Original? Untampered? Content credible?            │
│  ├─ Legality: Subject? Procedure? Form? Illegal exclusion?         │
│  ├─ Relevance: Logical link to the fact to be proved? Degree?         │
│  └─ Probative value: Type-specific rules? Reinforcement needed?                │
│                                               │
│  Comprehensive judgment:                                    │
│  ┌─ Corroboration / contradiction among items                       │
│  ├─ Completeness of the evidence chain                              │
│  ├─ Whether the standard of proof is met                           │
│  └─ Reinforcement recommendations                                  │
│                                               │
│  ⚠️ Fatal checks:                                │
│  □ Is the litigation type correct?                          │
│  □ Is the standard of proof correct?                          │
│  □ Has illegally obtained evidence been screened?                        │
│  □ Has the burden of proof been clarified?                          │
│  □ Has lone evidence been flagged?                            │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────┘