Obtaining and Evaluating Evidence in Light of the New Criminal Procedure Code in the Judicial District of Sánchez Ramírez

Abstract

With the Code of Criminal Procedure's implementation, the Dominican legal system shifted from a mixed accusatorial-inquisitorial system to a moderate adversarial one, replacing the procedure used from 1844 to 2004. This has drawn frequent criticism of the Public Prosecutor's Office's limited logistics for obtaining evidence relevant to establishing the truth. This documentary, field-based, analytical study examined how evidence is obtained and evaluated in the Judicial District of Sánchez Ramírez, emphasizing the code's guiding principles. Among the recognized means of evidence—confession, testimony, expert opinion, documentary evidence, on-site inspection, and presumptive evidence—testimonial evidence was found to be the most used in the district's criminal proceedings. While the principles governing evidence are generally known and applied, the appropriate procedural moment for presenting evidence remains unclear, causing some evidence to be inadmissible. Recommendations are directed at the Public Prosecutor's Office, lawyers, the Supreme Court of Justice, the Attorney General's Office, the Dominican Bar Association and its Sánchez Ramírez chapter, and the National School of the Public Prosecutor's Office.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.