TY  - THES
N1  - Farrah Syamala S.H, M.H.
ID  - digilib76928
UR  - https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/76928/
A1  - Inggit Aprilia Putri, NIM.: 22103040169
Y1  - 2026/05/25/
N2  - Crown witnesses, prior to the enactment of Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code, were solely based on the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Indonesia No. 1986 K/Pid/1989 dated March 21, 1990. Nevertheless, Supreme Court Decisions No. 1174 K/Pid/1994 in conjunction with No. 1592 K/Pid/1995 emphasized that the use of crown witnesses should be avoided because it was considered contrary to the human rights of defendants. Eventually, crown witnesses were explicitly recognized in Law Number 20 of 2025 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code. However, the practice of using crown witnesses, including the mechanism for their use and the considerations in determining crown witnesses in criminal cases, continues to generate debate between the interests of law enforcement and the protection of defendants? rights.
The research method applied in this study is empirical juridical research with a descriptive-analytical approach aimed at describing legal conditions in practice. Primary data were collected through interviews with the Yogyakarta District Attorney?s Office, while secondary data were obtained through documentation studies and literature reviews. The Negative Statutory Theory of Evidence (negatief wettelijk) was employed as the analytical framework, primarily to analyze the considerations of public prosecutors in determining crown witnesses in Decision Number 380/Pid.B/2024/PN Yyk.
The results of the study indicate that the mechanism for the use of crown witnesses in Decision Number 380/Pid.B/2024/PN Yyk and the new Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) shows quite significant differences. These differences lie in the absence of provisions regarding the separation of case files (splitsing) in the new KUHAP. Nevertheless, the new KUHAP introduces formal approval, written agreements, and court authorization. This demonstrates that the regulations in the new KUHAP are directed toward a more structured, transparent mechanism that emphasizes the protection of suspects? rights and the principle of a fair trial. The evidentiary process in the a quo case, through the use of key witness testimony by the public prosecutor at the Kejaksaan Negeri Yogyakarta, has been deemed lawful and in accordance with the proper procedures governing the use of key witnesses. In addition, the judge?s conviction in the a quo case was fulfilled based on several considerations, namely that the defendant had no grounds for excuse, the defendant was directly involved in the assault, and the crown witness evidence was lawfully obtained by the public prosecutor, because it has been recognized in the new Criminal Procedure Code.In other words, the testimony of a crown witness assists the public prosecutor in fulfilling the requirement of two valid pieces of evidence and in establishing facts and the judge?s conviction, thereby aligning with the negative evidentiary system.
PB  - UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA
KW  - Saksi Mahkota
KW  -  Pembuktian Pidana
KW  -  KUHAP Baru
M1  - skripsi
TI  - ANALISIS PERTIMBANGAN JAKSA PENUNTUT UMUM TERHADAP PENGGUNAAN SAKSI MAHKOTA (KROONGETUIGE) DALAM PERKARA PIDANA (STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR 380/PID.B/2024/PN YYK DI KEJAKSAAN NEGERI YOGYAKARTA)
AV  - restricted
EP  - 144
ER  -