THEORETICAL PROBLEMS OF EVIDENCE EVALUATION BASED ON INNER CONVICTION IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Keywords:
inner conviction, evidence evaluation, inadmissibility of evidence, criminal procedure, evidence criteria, acquittal verdicts, prosecutorial bias, electronic evidenceAbstract
The article is devoted to researching the theoretical problems of OF evidence evaluation based on inner conviction in criminal procedure based on the analysis of Articles 95 and 951 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. The concept of internal conviction was analyzed, the criteria for evaluating evidence (relevance, permissibility, reliability, and sufficiency) were investigated, and the problems of their application were identified. The grounds for recognizing evidence as inadmissible, including evidence obtained through torture, falsified evidence, and evidence obtained in violation of the right to defense, as well as the 2024 novelty on the inadmissibility of electronic data obtained without the participation of a specialist, were thoroughly examined. Based on statistical data from the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan, a decrease in the share of acquittals for the period 2020-2025 was revealed, which may indicate the presence of an accusatory bias in the formation of judges’ internal convictions. Comparative legal analysis revealed the advantages and disadvantages of the continental and Anglo-American models of evidence assessment. Practical recommendations include introducing additional procedural guarantees to enhance the objectivity of internal conviction, legally establishing mandatory elements of sentence motivation, introducing rules on the inadmissibility of derivative evidence, and reforming the system for evaluating judges’ activities.
References
703.1 Relevance & Admissibility [Rules 401, 402]. (2021). https://ncpro.sog.unc.edu/manual/703-1
Astanov, I., & Hamidov, B. (2021). Obshheteoreticheskie voprosy, svyazannye s elektronnymi ili tsifrovymi dokazatelstvami: problema i reshenie [General theoretical issues related to electronic or digital evidence: Problem and solution]. Obshhestvo i innovatsii [Society and Innovations], 2(7/S), 259–278.
Boland, B. (1999). German and American prosecutions: An approach to statistical comparison. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom, Applications no. 26766/05 and 22228/06. (2011, December 15). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-108072%22]}
Keller v. Russia, Application no. 26824/04. (2013, Octomber 17). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-126907%22]}
Schatschaschwili v. Germany, Application no. 9154/10. (2015, December 15). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-159566%22]}
Clermont, K. M. (2009). Standards of proof revisited. Vermont Law Review, 33. (Originally presented at the Emotion in Context: Exploring the Interaction between Emotions and Legal Institutions Conference, University of Chicago Law School, May 2008). Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper, 1321029.
Damaška, M. R. (1997). Evidence law adrift. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt32bnj3
Esnard, C., & Dumas, R. (2018). L’intime conviction: entre cadres légaux, représentations et pratiques chez les magistrats et jurés en cour d’assises [Personal conviction: between legal frameworks, representations and practices among judges and jurors in the Assize Court]. Bulletin de psychologie [Psychology Bulletin], 559, 53–69.
Federal Rules of Evidence. (2024, December 1). https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
Gramlich, J. (2023). Few federal criminal defendants go to trial and even fewer are acquitted. Pew Research Center.
Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586. (2006). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/547/586/
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307. (1979). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/443/307/
Johnson, D. T. (2002). The Japanese way of justice: Prosecuting crime in Japan. Oxford University Press.
Klamberg, M. (2020, February 25). Epistemological controversies and evaluation of evidence in international criminal trials. In K. J. Heller, F. Mégret, S. Nouwen, J. D. Ohlin, & D. Robinson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of international criminal law (OUP 2020). Stockholm University Research Paper, 65. Faculty of Law.
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643. (1961). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/367/643/
Mirazov, D. M. (2016). Dastlabki tergov idoralari faoliyati ustidan kontrol va nazoratni takomillashtirishning nazariy, tashkiliy va protsessual jihatlari [Theoretical, organizational, and procedural aspects of improving control and supervision over preliminary investigation authorities]. [Abstract of DSc Dissertation]. Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Murodov, B. B. (2018). Jinoyat ishini tugatish institutini takomillashtirish [Improvement of the institution of termination of criminal cases]. [Abstract of DSc Dissertation]. Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431. (1984). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/467/431/
Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for juror decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192–222). Cambridge University Press.
Rajabov, B. A. (2019). Jinoyat protsessida dalillarni to‘plash, tekshirish va baholash [Collection, examination, and evaluation of evidence in criminal proceedings]. [Monograph]. Tashkent: Academy of the MIA of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
Ramseyer, J. M., & Rasmusen, E. B. (2001). Why is the Japanese conviction rate so high? The Journal of Legal Studies, 30(1), 53–88.
Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385. (1920). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/251/385/
Stat.sud.uz. (2025). Jinoyat ishlari bo’yicha statistik ma’lumotlar [Criminal statistics]. https://stat.sud.uz/criminal
Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis). (2020). Criminal prosecution by the courts in 2019: Convictions up 2.3% on 2018.
Suyunova, D. (2023, June 10). Sovremennye problemy dopustimosti dokazatelstv na stadii sudebnogo razbiratelstva [Contemporary problems of admissibility of evidence at the trial stage]. Society and Innovations.
Thienel, T. (2006). The admissibility of evidence obtained by torture under international law. European Journal of International Law, 17(2), 349–367.
Tuhtasheva, U. (2020). Perspektivy uproshhennogo sudoproizvodstva v ugolovnom processe [Prospects for simplified criminal procedure]. Obshhestvo i innovatsii, [Society and Innovations] 1(1), 189–199.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7758/9781610445429
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 1. (1994). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/511/1/
Weigend, T. (2003). Is the criminal process about truth?: A German perspective. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 26, 157.
Wistrich, A. J., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2017, March 16). Implicit bias in judicial decision making: How it affects judgment and what judges can do about it. In Enhancing justice (Chapter 5). American Bar Association. Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper, 17-16.
Wistrich, A. J., Guthrie, C., & Rachlinski, J. J. (2004). Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 153, 1251.
Wistrich, A. J., Rachlinski, J. J., & Guthrie, C. (2015). Heart versus head: Do judges follow the law or follow their feelings? Texas Law Review, 93, 855–923.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 JURISPRUDENCE
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
