论非典型鉴定意见的法律效力——“鉴定咨询意见”、“鉴定检验报告”、“技术证据审核意见”的证据能力问题亟需依法统一认识

“两种意见”和“两种检验报告”的性质和作用问题，在司法鉴定和司法活动中是经常引起争议的理论和实践问题。本文针对当前的争议．对每个问题提出了自己的观点和解决争议的主张。认为“鉴定专家咨询委员会”出具的“鉴定咨询意见”不是鉴定意见．不能作为定案的根据，只能作为侦查、审查起诉、审判的参考。并论证了其中的多方面原因;主张“鉴定检验报告”应当区分法定与法外两种性质，分别属于法定鉴定意见证据和仅供审判部门参考的非法定证据．并提出了对两种不同性质“检验报告”的使用评断原则;认为人民检察院、人民法院的“科技证据审核活动”．属于司法机关对鉴定意见的内部咨询活动，审查的范围仅限于四个方面．技审人员和机构无权对司法鉴定意见进行否定或肯定．只能对四方面的问题提出“审查建议”,“技术审查意见”只能作为检察、审判机关审查起诉和审判的内部参考．不能栽入起诉书和裁判文书。     

科学证据可采性规则研究

科学证据是运用科学知识和科学方法对证据分析所得的判断意见。因此,科学证据属于意见性证言。为防止不可靠的科学证据对法庭的误导,英美法系国家建立了科学证据可采性规则,包括相关性规则、必要性规则、专家证人资格规则、排除规则、可靠性规则。美国科学证据可靠性规则经历了从Frye规则、Daubert规则到修订后的《联邦证据规则》702条的嬗变。我国对鉴定意见的审查主要限于相关性和合法性的审查。由于缺少对鉴定意见可靠性审查的指导与限制,导致了错误裁决的风险。本文提出确立鉴定意见科学可靠性规则的构想,以利于法官排除错误的鉴定意见,同时有助于法庭科学实验室的管理与制度完善,促使法庭科学实验室更严谨更科学地为法庭提供优质的法庭科学服务。     

论科学证据、专家证言、鉴定意见三者的关系

与科学证据有关的法律概念主要有大陆法的鉴定意见,以及英美法国家的专家证言。鉴定意见与专家证言之间,由于具有不同的证据法原理,不具有可比性。在英美法国家,科学证据应是专家证言的下位概念;在大陆法国家,科学证据与鉴定意见之间的关系,与鉴定的法律定位密切相关,要具体国家具体分析。明确这一点,有利于厘清我国科学证据的相关法律定位及其与鉴定意见之间的关系。     

Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence

A critical examination of the way that courts handle scientific expert evidence reveals inconsistency in strategies for validating and legitimating the weight attached to it. This inconsistency is rooted in perceptions of the nature of scientific knowledge. The essay considers the implications of this analysis for the Woolf reforms of civil procedure with respect to expert evidence.     

刑事技术鉴定性质探究

刑事技术鉴定作为刑事诉讼程序中解决专门性问题的一项工作,因为司法实践中出现的种种问题而倍受关注。如何制定出体现法治精神和诉讼价值的刑事技术鉴定程序是刑事诉讼法修改工作的一个重要方面。刑事技术鉴定程序的完善以对刑事技术鉴定性质的正确认识为前提。刑事技术鉴定是刑事诉讼行为而非侦查行为,是鉴定人运用科学技术或者专门知识解决诉讼中所涉及的专门性问题,刑事技术鉴定是人的证据方法,鉴定结论是言词证据。     

科学证据可采性标准的认识论反思与重构

科学证据的可采性是指是采纳某一科学证据作为证明某一事实的标准或条件。目前我国还没有建立明确的科学证据可采性标准,而在科学证据研究最发达的英美国家,科学证据可采性标准中的一些基本要素也是纠缠不清的。通过对科学证据可采性标准的历史考察和认识论反思,并根据科学证据在真相发现中的功能,可以尝试从内在属性和外在属性两个方面来审视科学证据可采性的结构。科学证据可采性的标准主要包括：科学证据本身的科学有效性、可靠性、科学相关性以及科学专家的可信性等。     

医疗损害鉴定主体改革刍议

医疗损害鉴定主体,包括鉴定机构及鉴定人,是医疗损害鉴定制度改革的起点。医疗事故鉴定模式中的专家组并不是鉴定主体,但其合议制的实质对鉴定结论的科学性具有重要作用,应予保留。应改革鉴定结论形成机制,允许出具多样化的鉴定结论。医疗损害鉴定制度的改革应采取司法行政部门主管、司法鉴定机构组织鉴定工作、医学会推荐鉴定人的模式。由于医学的专业性极强,鉴定人应当来自于现任专职医务人员。在保证鉴定人中立性、公正性的同时,要重视保证医务人员参与鉴定工作的积极性。     

The forensic medical diagnosis of the types of vehicle-caused trauma by using mathematical methods and programming systems]

Urgent problems of scientific research on medicolegal evaluation of vehicle trauma were studied. One of perspective ways of increasing scientific control and evidential value of expert conclusion is pointed out. Use of mathematical methods and personal computers in expert evaluation of vehicle trauma is recommended. Expert differential diagnostic system (impact-overrun) developed is described and operating condition of personal computer is given.     

SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH AND SOCIAL POLICY: BRIDGING THE GAP1

Clinical examples of misapplications of social science research are reviewed with an emphasis on what can be learned with regard to dealing with and preventing such misuse of this type of knowledge. The differences in language and culture that characterize scientific research as separate from advocacy and social policy are also examined, with recommendations for improved cross‐cultural communication.     

专家证言、新科学理论与法官角色——以美国法中的Daubert标准为中心

在专家证言的可采性判断标准上,Daubert标准替代＂普遍接受＂标准成为发展方向。Daubert标准在赋予法官很大的自由裁量的同时,也赋予其艰巨的＂守门人＂角色。Daubert标准将决定权中心从专业界移至法官。Daubert标准对多种因素的弹性考量给新科学证据的可采性提供了机遇和可能,但是一切要取决于法官的自由裁量和＂守门人＂职责的履行。     

Evoking equity as a rationale for solar geoengineering research? Scrutinizing emerging expert visions of equity

This paper examines how notions of equity are being evoked by expert advocates of more research into solar geoengineering. We trace how specific understandings of equity figure centrally—although not always explicitly—in these expert visions. We find that understandings of equity in such “vanguard visions” are narrowly conceived as epistemic challenges, answerable by (more) scientific analysis. Major concerns about equity are treated as empirical matters, requiring scientific assessment of feasibility, risks, or “win–win” distributive outcomes and optimizations, with concurrent calls to delimit risk or reduce scientific uncertainties. We argue that such epistemic framings sidestep, inter alia, the inequality in resources available to diverse non-experts—including the “vulnerable” evoked in expert visions—to project their own equity perspectives onto imagined technological pathways of the future. These may include concerns relating to moral or historical responsibility and/or lack of agency in shaping the directions of innovation. We conclude that the performative power and political implications of specific expert visions of equity, evoked as a rationale to undertake solar geoengineering research, require continued scrutiny.     

让科学证据走下神坛

科学证据迅速＂蹿红＂,说明了人们对科学有极高期待。但现在人们对科学证据有奉若神明之趋势,这又人为制造了证据理论的另一混乱局面。从历史根源、法律根源、科学根源及社会根源等四个方面剖析人们迷信科学证据的原因,然后讨论科学证据回归理性的途径,让科学证据走下神坛,与其它证据携手共同维护司法的公正。     

Convenient and Inconvenient Truths in Family Law: Preventing Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in the Use of Social Science Research for Public Policy

This is the second of two articles on the risks of advocacy bias in the reporting of research findings when boundaries are blurred between social science research and advocacy in the pursuit of public policy. In the first article we identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence. The first article discusses the difference between truth in social science and truth in law and identifies a range of scholar‐advocacy strategies that bias research evidence, illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. In this second article we show how biased research evidence by scholar advocates results in increased confusion and controversy that diminishes the credibility of all parties and stalemates progress in the field, using a case illustration of intimate partner violence in family court. We also show how adherence to scientific methods prevents the misuse of research and suggest a number of collaborative, integrative measures that can help transcend the adversarial stalemate. In a look to the future we consider some unbiased, standardized ways of assessing the strength and generalizability of research evidence.     

摇晃婴儿综合征:科学(与非科学)专家的一场真实交战

本文从科学和法律层面介绍了摇晃婴儿综合征的有关内容,就关于摇晃婴儿综合征的科学和非科学专家证言的可采性进行了评价,称在科学和非科学专家之间正在发生一场真实的交战。     

摇晃婴儿综合征:科学(与非科学)专家的一场真实交战

本文从科学和法律层面介绍了摇晃婴儿综合征的有关内容,就关于摇晃婴儿综合征的科学和非科学专家证言的可采性进行了评价,称在科学和非科学专家之间正在发生一场真实的交战.     

设立专家证人制度的构想

我国立法目前只规定鉴定结论而不采纳专家证言证据,既不符合诉讼的科学规律,也不利于对涉及专门性问题的诉讼审查与准确判断,也无法从根本上解决目前在司法实践中存在的各种问题。因此,应当借鉴英美法系的专家证人制度以及有关国家的先进立法,在行政诉讼中建立专家证人制度,增加专家证人证言作为鉴定结论的补充,丰富专家证据的形式。     

英美法国家科学证据的历史沿革评述

从18世纪到20世纪,英美法国家有关科学证据的法庭运用,所表明的基本思想是,将科学证据评价的事实问题,通过三种方法转化为法律问题,以此保证法官在科学证据评价中承担更多的审查义务,以减少陪审团在科学证据判断上出错的可能性。这三种法律转化方法分别是,专家资格审查、专家证言的形式审查、专家证言的实质审查。这在20世纪的美国审判中,表现得更为突出。     

英美法国家科学证据的历史沿革评述

从18世纪到20世纪,英美法国家有关科学证据的法庭运用,所表明的基本思想是,将科学证据评价的事实问题,通过三种方法转化为法律问题,以此保证法官在科学证据评价中承担更多的审查义务,以减少陪审团在科学证据判断上出错的可能性。这三种法律转化方法分别是,专家资格审查、专家证言的形式审查、专家证言的实质审查。这在20世纪的美国审判中,表现得更为突出。     

Will the law come running? The potential role of "brain fingerprinting" in crime investigation and adjudication in Australia

A major feature of the Australian criminal justice system is that jurors assess witness credibility and are the ultimate finders of fact. Recognising the occasional fallibility of humans in detecting truth and deception, the jury's function may be assisted by highly regulated expert evidence about a variety of scientific techniques. A recent scientific development has been the invention of "brain fingerprinting" (BF) by Dr Larry Farwell in the United States. Brain fingerprinting measures brainwave functioning to detect awareness of crime-relevant information in order to distinguish between guilty and innocent suspects. This article considers whether BF could be used for crime investigation and adjudication in Australia. By examining the rules of expert evidence and the principles relating to "novel scientific evidence", the admissibility of BF in the various Australian jurisdictions is evaluated. The utility of BF in criminal investigations and counter-terrorism initiatives is also canvassed. The authors conclude that, at the present time, it is unlikely that expert testimony on BF will be admitted in Australian criminal trials. However, the technique potentially offers other benefits to the criminal justice system, thereby warranting its consideration as a "criminal and investigative tool of the future".