“以审判为中心诉讼制度改革”开启了公诉证据标准研究的新阶段。在前后两个不同阶段的讨论中,虽然前后论证依据不同,但是其争辩焦点一直是“同一说”与“级差说”的对立。当前的讨论集中于“以审判为中心诉讼制度改革”的影响,忽视了认罪认罚从宽制度改革对传统公诉证据标准的冲击。在“以审判为中心诉讼制度改革”背景下,“同一说”的论证新理由也难以成立,“倒级差”的风险则没有引起关注。认罪认罚案件中公诉证据标准与有罪判决标准趋于混同,其带来的错案风险可通过检法协作,制定类案证据标准予以化解。

Taking the “the reform of the trial-centered litigation system” as a boundary, the discussion of the standard of evidence in prosecution can be divided into two stages. Although the argument based on different foundations, the focus of the issues has always been the “identity theory” and “differential theory.” The current discussion has been focusing on the impact of the reform of the trial-centered litigation system, while it ignores the impact of the reformative power of the plea bargaining on the standard of the traditional prosecution evidence. Under the background of the reform of the trial-centered litigation system, the new justification for “identity theory” is difficult to stand the test. The risk of “inverted differential” has drawn no attention as well. In the case of pleading guilty, the standard of prosecution evidence and the standard of guilty verdict tend to confuse with each other. The risk of misjudgment brought by it can be resolved through the enactment of evidence standard of the similar case. The evidence standard shall be accomplished through the collaboration between the procuratorate and court.