Expert evidence and hearsay

In upholding the admission of expert evidence, some courts have held that hearsay information conveyed via an expert may be admitted as long as the jury is instructed to ignore the facts asserted in the hearsay statements and to use the information only for determining the weight to attribute to the expert's opinion. Results of a mock juror simulation indicated that although hearsay elements conveyed via an expert were perceived as less likely compared to a condition in which the information was independently admitted at trial, it was not completely ignored by the jurors. Further, the findings tended to suggest that the impact of the hearsay on verdict decisions operated primarily by influencing evaluations regarding the likelihood of the hearsay events as opposed to judgments regarding the expert testimony.     

Chapter 2: The Legal Position and Organizational Forms of Forensic Psychiatric Expert Examination

The practical task of forensic psychiatry, which is one of the subdivisions of psychiatry, is to give an expert evaluation, on assignment from investigatory agencies and courts, and to devise and recommend measures for the prevention of socially dangerous acts by the mentally ill. Forensic psychiatric expert examination, like forensic medical, criminal, or any other type of expert examination, aids agencies of justice in establishing the facts in a case. Forensic psychiatric expert examination is called upon to assist the investigator and the court in determining whether an individual is a criminal or a legally irresponsible, mentally ill person; whether a person sentenced to a prison term should, because of mental illness, be released before his time is served; whether the investigator and the court may pursue the interrogation of a witness or victim with mental disorders, and whether the testimony of such persons may be used as court evidence. Such an expert examination is necessary in a civil suit in deciding the question of an individual's competence.     

专家辅助人出庭协助质证实务探讨

为相关部门实施＂两法＂以及制定＂专家辅助人出庭协助鉴定意见质证实施细则＂提供参考资料,需要对＂有专门知识的人＂出庭就鉴定人的鉴定意见质证等六个亟待解决的实务问题进行探讨。＂有专门知识的人＂法律上不具有唯一性且未反映其身份和职责特点,宜更名为＂专家辅助人＂;对＂专家辅助人＂的条件和资格确认提出主张;探讨＂专家辅助人＂出庭质证规则的四个主要问题;对＂专家辅助人＂在法庭上向鉴定人提问的内容与方式和参加鉴定意见辩论应掌握的要点提出若干规范性建议;对＂专家辅助人＂法庭质证意见的性质与作用发表评论性意见,并认为专家辅助人应依法进行统一管理,建立以司法行政机关管理为主、人民法院管理为辅的两结合管理模式。     

Expert testimony in historical perspective

The ethical problems surrounding expert testimony depend directly on the historically specific relationship between science and scientists, on the one hand, and society on the other. In the seventeenth century, when modern experimental science was beginning to emerge, it drew upon legal experience to bolster its methodological arguments. In the eighteenth century, after the successes of Sir Isaac Newton, science gained in authority, and even in law courts the epistemological authority of science went unchallenged. In the nineteenth century, the more empirical sciences, such as chemistry and physics, entered the courts, and juries found the testimony of experimental chemists and physicists useful for their decisions. In the twentieth century, experimental psychology entered the courts. Pushed by Hugo Munsterburg, who saw in legal recognition a way of advancing psychology as a scientific profession, experimental psychology in the courtroom raised ethical problems at the beginning of the century that are still matters of controversy.     

专家辅助人管理模式研究

专家辅助人出庭质证制度正在悄悄改变现有的诉讼格局。通过专家出庭质证,改变了法庭对鉴定意见盲从的现状;但对专家辅助人监管的缺失使法律界人士担忧,其不仅违背法律对诉讼参与人应当监管的原则,也为该制度的正常适用埋下隐患。通过对专家辅助人是否应当管理、如何管理和怎样管理进行理论上的探讨,提出了当前阶段只适宜采用审判管理的建议。     

An Update on the New Federal Expert Discovery Rule: The Expert's Perspective

In December 2010, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 (FRCP 26) was amended to protect certain communications between a litigating counsel and its experts from discovery. The rule protects communications and draft expert reports and lays out new disclosure requirements for the so-called “treating physician” expert. Attorneys and experts who first read the rule commonly agreed that the rule would make expert discovery more streamlined and cost-effective while preserving an opposing party's right to obtain facts and data that were considered by the expert in formulating its opinion. However, many commentators on the amended FRCP 26 warned practitioners not to fully embrace the literal meaning of the rule until it was field tested by litigating attorneys and the courts had the opportunity to interpret a number of loosely defined terms during the course of resolving federal discovery disputes. Now, almost a year after the rule's first official publication, several courts have interpreted the key terms that appear in the rule and have expressed their interpretations in written opinions. The judicial holdings of these cases cover different aspects of the rule, and it is still too early to determine how the majority of federal courts will ultimately interpret it. However, a review of current case law indicates that the courts have, thus far, taken a practical and literal view of the amended rule and have not expanded or limited its scope beyond what was generally believed to be the intent of the rule. As a result, practitioners are still hopeful that the rule will make working with an expert more efficient and less cumbersome, to the benefit of experts, attorneys, and ultimately their clients.     

Expert scientific evidence under the adversarial system. A travesty of justice?

The procedures for providing courts with expert scientific evidence under the adversarial and inquisitorial systems are reviewed with special reference to the role of the Home Office as the principal purveyor of such evidence at English law. It is suggested that recent advances in technology must lead to increasing interdependence of the various disciplines involved and that the artificial separations which presently exist, notably between forensic pathology and science, are unsatisfactory. Attention is called to the situation in many European countries where medico-legal institutes provide the courts with comprehensive expert scientific services which are non-confrontational and which do not place experts in the position of appearing for one or other of the parties to an action.     

Expert Testimony on Psychological Injury: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

This article introduces psychologists to aspects of the legal process most pertinent to their role as expert witnesses in civil litigation. It summarizes the role of psychological evidence in the adjudication of common law tort claims, the structure of the court system, and the stages of the litigation process. It also explains the various roles a psychological expert may play during litigation and the implications of those roles for expert confidentiality and disclosure. The article then provides an overview of legal policy governing the admissibility of psychological expertise, especially as admissibility is affected by the “Daubert” standard applied in most North American courts.     

论刑事诉讼专家证人制度的构建

专家证人制度主要是英美法系的一种法律制度,功能是弥补法官在专业知识上的缺陷,帮助法庭查明案件中遇到的专业性问题。专家证人在我国民事诉讼中初露端倪,而在刑事诉讼中是一个盲点,这种状况已越来越不能适应刑事司法发展的需要。在刑事诉讼中引进专家证人制度,强化对鉴定结论的审查,应不失为一种有益的尝试。     

论鉴定人的法律地位及其责任机制

鉴定人的法律责任是司法鉴定制度的一个重要的组成部分。从比较法角度分析在英美法国家和大陆法国家鉴定人法律地位的两种基本样式及其特征 ,比较不同程序结构下鉴定人承担的法律义务和相应责任的性质及内容 ,从而对我国鉴定人责任机制进行宏观建构。     

论专家辅助人意见——以刑事辩护为视角的分析

我国2012年新《刑事诉讼法》首次设立了专家辅助人制度，对鉴定意见的质证提供了技术上的支持，对于刑事辩护来说意义重大。从证据法的角度看来，专家辅助人意见具有言词证据、意见证据、弹劾证据的多重属性，因此意见的内容应围绕鉴定意见中的专门性问题，并结合《刑事诉讼法》及相关司法解释对鉴定意见的审查判断规则来提出；而法庭对于鉴定意见的审查也应从准入资格与可靠性两方面进行，以免专家辅助人意见替代鉴定意见来主导审判。     

Chapter 5: Forensic Psychiatric Expert Examination in Civil Proceedings. Problems of Incompetence of the Mentally Ill

Forensic psychiatric expert examination in civil proceedings is most often called upon to determine the extent of mental changes affecting the capacity of a person to understand the significance of his actions or to govern them. In connection with the coming into force of the Fundamentals of Civil Procedure of the USSR and the Union Republics on May 1, 1962, this type of expert examination has become much more frequent, inasmuch as the determination of legal competence has come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts.     

Expert Evidence in the English Civil Courts, 1550–1800

This article identifies the changing nature of expert evidence in the English civil courts between 1550 and 1800. The changes are of two types: the first represents developments in the roles that experts adopted in making their contribution to the fact-finding process; the second represents changes in the substance of expert evidence, particularly with the increasing complexity of the specialist inferences involved. A proper understanding of these changes requires that we distinguish the different procedural contexts within which expert evidence was being used during this period and in particular the different court systems in operation.     

环境司法专门化背景下专家陪审员制度研究

为正确认定环境诉讼中的证据和事实,提高司法公信力,建议建立专家陪审员参与环境案件审理的制度.环境案件专业性、技术性和复杂性较强,专家陪审员直接参加审理,能够弥补法官环境专业知识的不足,解决环境案件审理中的技术难题,这对科学认定案件事实、有效监督人民法院审判工作,切实提升环境司法公信力具有重要意义.在借鉴知识产权审判与地...     

从“科学的代言人”到“当事人的枪手”——专家证人历史沿革与我国现实考察

英美法系在很早以前就认识到了专家在审判中的重要作用，而具有偏向性专家证人则是对抗制的产物。在中世纪，专家是以陪审团成员或者法官顾问的身份出现在法庭上的，由法官进行引导和控制．以保证其中立性和公正性。16世纪，随着知情陪审团被不知情陪审团所替代，法院开始传唤专家出庭，就某个专业问题向陪审团提供意见和结论。到了18世纪．英美法系审判中对抗的因素越来越多．双方当事人开始传唤专家作为各自的证人出庭提供意见。但18世纪末19世纪初的专家证人并不具有偏向性。直到19世纪中期，专家证人开始为各自当事人的利益服务．在法庭上为就与案件事实相关的专门性问题提出自己的意见．现代意义上的专家证人产生。梳理英美法系专家证人的历史对我国司法鉴定制度改革具有重要的指导意义。我国现已全面确立专家辅助人制度．专家辅助人应当具有中立性．并需构建一系列的程序和制度对专家辅助人的中立性进行保障。     

司法鉴定人出庭质证能力优化的路径选择

近年来,随着法治意识的逐渐深入,社会公众对于鉴定意见的认知亦趋于理性,申请鉴定人出庭的频次大幅提升。与此同时,由于鉴定意见具有较高的证据价值,往往能左右司法裁判,因此,其在出庭过程中也将越来越多地受到来自诉讼各方的质疑与挑战,对鉴定人的出庭能力提出了新要求。为更好地维护原本客观的鉴定意见能够最终被法官所采信,应尽快开展鉴定人出庭能力专项培训,以模拟法庭、＂以老带新＂的形式培养鉴定人的法庭技巧。     

Synthesizing Related Rules from Statutes and Cases for Legal Expert Systems

Abstract. Different legal expert systems may be incompatible with each other: A user in characterizing the same situation by answering the questions presented in a consultation can be led to contradictory inferences. Such systems can be "synthesized" to help users avoid such contradictions by alerting them that other relevant systems are available to be consulted as they are responding to questions. An example of potentially incompatible, related legal expert systems is presented here - ones for the New Jersey murder statute and the celebrated Quinlan case, along with one way of synthesizing them to avoid such incompatibility.     

论民事诉讼中专家辅助人的法律定位

司法鉴定意见在诉讼中占据重要的地位,但因鉴定意见具有较强的专业性,在法庭质证中普通人很难对其进行实质审查,虽然当事人可以聘请专家辅助人参与质证,但由于对专家辅助人的适用缺乏可操作规定,以至于严重影响这一制度的执行。如何发挥专家辅助人在鉴定意见质证中的作用,需要制定一套科学的程序来保障。     

Legal principles governing expert testimony by experimental psychologists

With increasing frequency, experimental psychologists are called upon to present their research findings and theories in a courtroom. This article reviews the general evidentiary standards regarding such expert testimony, with a specific emphasis on how those principles have been applied in the context of expert psychological testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identifications. A comprehensive review of the judicial decisions in this area reveals that there has recently been a significant shift in the courts' receptivity toward such testimony. Many courts now believe that psychological research on human perception and memory has progressed to the point that the expert's testimony may be considered both reliable enough and helpful enough to the jury to justify its adminssion in the appropriate case. The author concludes with a discussion of several developments that would help to allay the judicial system's historical concerns over the admission of such expert psychological testimony.