庭前会议制度自正式施行以来,就与非法证据排除规则存在紧密联系,其对提高司法效率、及时保障当事人权益、维护司法公正具有重要意义,甚至有学者将非法证据排除比作“审判前的审判”。但是学理上对于非法证据是否应该在庭前阶段排除存在普遍争议,实践中地方法院的庭前会议也存在非法证据排除率低和不允许在庭审阶段提出证据排除申请的分歧。因此,在坚持走审判中心主义的背景下,通过明确庭前会议的裁决主体、增强庭前会议协议的约束力和保障各方参与人的诉讼权利等措施来弥补庭前会议证据排除规则中的不足,从而保持庭前会议与庭审的平衡。 Since the formal implementation of the pretrial system, it has close ties with the rule of excluding illegal evidence, which is of great significance to improving judicial efficiency, protecting the interests of parties in a timely manner and safeguarding judicial fairness. Some scholars even compared the exclusion of illegal evidence with “ Judgment ”. However, in theory, there is a widespread controversy over whether illegal evidence should be ruled out in the pre-trial stage. In practice, there is also a discrepancy in the pre-trial meeting of the district court with the low exclusion rate of illegal evidence and the fact that the application of evidence is not allowed during the trial stage. Therefore, under the background of upholding the doctrine of trial, we can make up for the precautionary rules of evidence in the pretrial court by defining the subject of the adjudication of the pretrial meeting, strengthening the binding of the pretrial meeting agreement and safeguarding the litigation rights of all participants. Inadequate, so as to maintain the pre-trial meeting and trial balance.