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。     

Instruction Bias and Lineup Presentation Moderate the Effects of Administrator Knowledge on Eyewitness Identification

Pairs (N = 234) of witnesses and lineup administrators completed an identification task in which administrator knowledge, lineup presentation, instruction bias, and target presence were manipulated. Administrator knowledge had the greatest effect on identifications of the suspect for simultaneous photospreads paired with biased instructions, with single-blind administrations increasing identifications of the suspect. When biased instructions were given, single-blind administrations produced fewer foil identifications than double-blind administrations. Administrators exhibited a greater proportion of biasing behaviors during single-blind administrations than during double-blind administrations. The diagnosticity of identifications of the suspect in double-blind administrations was double their diagnosticity in single-blind administrations. These results suggest that when biasing factors are present to increase a witness’s propensity to guess, single-blind administrator behavior influences witnesses to identify the suspect.     

Protecting Eyewitness Evidence: Examining the Efficacy of a Self-Administered Interview Tool

Given the crucial role of eyewitness evidence, statements should be obtained as soon as possible after an incident. This is not always achieved due to demands on police resources. Two studies trace the development of a new tool, the Self-Administered Interview (SAI), designed to elicit a comprehensive initial statement. In Study 1, SAI participants reported more correct details than participants who provided a free recall account, and performed at the same level as participants given a Cognitive Interview. In Study 2, participants viewed a simulated crime and half recorded their statement using the SAI. After a delay of 1 week, all participants completed a free recall test. SAI participants recalled more correct details in the delayed recall task than control participants.     

Impact of Defense-Only and Opposing Eyewitness Experts on Juror Judgments

Previous research shows that expert testimony on eyewitness memory influences mock-juror judgments. We examined the extent to which opposing expert testimony mitigates the impact of defense-only expert testimony. Participants (N = 497) viewed a video-taped trial involving an eyewitness identification and individually rendered verdicts and evaluated the evidence and the experts. We manipulated the Foils (unbiased vs. biased) and Instructions (unbiased vs. biased) of the lineup and Expert Testimony (no expert vs. defense-only expert vs. opposing experts). Expert testimony did not significantly influence juror judgments, but the opposing expert testimony diminished the credibility of the defense expert in the eyes of the jurors. Results point to the need for further research on conditions that qualify the impact of expert testimony.     

The Impact on Juror Verdicts of Judicial Instruction to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Meta-Analysis

The effect on juror verdicts of judicial instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence was evaluated using meta-analysis. One hundred seventy-five hypothesis tests from 48 studies with a combined 8,474 participants were examined. Results revealed that inadmissible evidence (IE) has a reliable effect on verdicts consistent with the content of the IE. Judicial instruction to ignore the inadmissible evidence does not effectively eliminate IE impact. However, if judges provide a rationale for a ruling of inadmissibility, juror compliance may be increased. Contested evidence ruled admissible accentuates that information, resulting in a significant impact on verdicts. Suggestions for how the courts may mitigate the impact of inadmissible evidence more effectively are discussed.     

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式之比较

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式是英美法系和大陆法系在解决专门性事实问题上两种不同的模式。两者在法律文化基础、有关专家的诉讼地位和资格、程序启动、质证、证据能力和证明力上都有很大的不同。然而,由于两种模式都存在其固有的缺陷,近年来各国都在进行相应的改革,出现了相互融合和借鉴的趋势。     

Investigating Investigators: Examining the Impact of Eyewitness Identification Evidence on Student-Investigators

This research examined the impact of eyewitness identification decisions on student-investigators. Undergraduates played the role of police investigators and interviewed student-witnesses who had been shown either a good or poor view of the perpetrator in a videotaped crime. Based on information obtained from the witness, student-investigators then chose a suspect from a database containing information about potential suspects and rated the probability that their suspect was the culprit. Investigators then administered a photo lineup to witnesses, and re-rated the probability that their suspect was guilty. Student-investigators were highly influenced by eyewitness identification decisions, typically overestimating the information gained from the identification decision (except under conditions that led witnesses to be very accurate), and were generally unable to differentiate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses.

Expert Testimony Pertaining to Battered Woman Syndrome: Its Impact on Jurors' Decisions

Participants (N = 200) were presented with a criminal homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Within the trial, both the response history (passive, active) and presence of expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome (present, absent) were systematically varied. As well, half of the participants in each of these conditions were provided with a nullification instruction informing them that they were free to disregard the law and acquit should a strict application of the law result in an unjust verdict. Results indicated that, compared to the passive response condition, the mock jurors were no less receptive to the expert testimony in the active response condition. The impact of the testimony on participants' verdicts, however, was moderated by the nullification instruction. That is, although the presence of the testimony did result in greater verdict leniency, this only occurred when the mock jurors had been released from a strict application of the law. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Pointed Shape of a Knife Influences Eyewitness Perception

We examined the hypothesis that a pointed knife attracts particular attention because of its pointed shape. Using a visual search task method, we asked 33 participants to search 3 × 3 matrices containing outlines of knives with pointed blades such as chef’s knives and knives with rectangular blades such as Chinese chopping knives and to determine whether the matrices contained identical or non-identical knives. The participants found a pointed knife within a background of knives with rectangular blades more quickly than under the reverse condition. This result indicates that the pointed shape of a knife has an attribute that captures human attention and suggests that the visual features of a weapon affect eyewitness perception. This research would benefit forensic investigations in countries such as Japan, where gun ownership is banned and perpetrators use knives more often than firearms.     

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。     

Expert Evidence Pertaining to Battered Women: The Impact of Gender of Expert and Timing of Testimony

The present study investigated the impact of two variables relating to general expert testimony pertaining to battered women on juror decision processes. Specifically, the gender of the expert, as well as the timing of the presentation of the testimony, were investigated in a simulated homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Results indicated that when the expert was female and the testimony was presented prior to the defendant's testimony, jurors' verdicts were more lenient. Moreover, across a range of case judgments, male jurors' perceptions were more favorable to the defendant when the expert was female as opposed to male. On two of the judgments this latter pattern of results was only evidenced when the testimony was presented early as opposed to late. The significance of these findings is discussed.     

Cueing Confidence in Eyewitness Identifications: Influence of Biased Lineup Instructions and Pre-Identification Memory Feedback Under Varying Lineup Conditions

Students watched a theft video, attempted an identification from a thief-present or thief-absent lineup under unbiased or biased instructions, and rated identification confidence. In Experiment 1, the participants received (bogus) positive, negative, or no pre-identification feedback about a recall test. Biased instructions and positive feedback increased confidence and ratings of eyewitnessing conditions. In Experiment 2, biased instructions increased confidence unless the thief was absent and lineup members were similar, where they decreased confidence. According to the cue-belief model, biased instructions send a positive accuracy cue regarding the most familiar-looking lineup member. If none stands out, instructions conflict with an inclination to reject the lineup. Feedback may create a belief about memory quality that is a cue regarding likely recognition accuracy.

宪法权利视角下的美国目击者辨认证据规则

自1967年的United States v．Wade案开始,美国最高法院逐步发展出目击者辨认证据（排除）规则。在各时期主流司法理念的影响下,律师帮助权和正当程序权利这两项宪法权利共同见证着该规则盛极而衰的历史演变。尽管正当程序正经受国际化浪潮的影响,但是却受到当前美国主流司法理念的抑制．于是很难再产生一次新的“革命”,目击者辨认证据规则的这一重要理论基础从而也大为削弱。该规则很难再单纯地继续因循修补加完善的传统套路,而是同时需要另辟蹊径采取成文法化的路径来规制辨认程序．这是美国司法界目前及未来面临的一项重要课题。     

宪法权利视角下的美国目击者辨认证据规则

自1967年的United States v.Wade案开始,美国最高法院逐步发展出目击者辨认证据(排除)规则。在各时期主流司法理念的影响下,律师帮助权和正当程序权利这两项宪法权利共同见证着该规则盛极而衰的历史演变。尽管正当程序正经受国际化浪潮的影响,但是却受到当前美国主流司法理念的抑制,于是很难再产生一次新的革命,目击者辨认证据规则的这一重要理论基础从而也大为削弱。该规则很难再单纯地继续因循修补加完善的传统套路,而是同时需要另辟蹊径采取成文法化的路径来规制辨认程序,这是美国司法界目前及未来面临的一项重要课题。     

The importance of forensic evidence for decisions on criminal guilt

Recent studies have found that the general public perceives forensic evidence to be relatively inaccurate and to involve high levels of human judgement. This study examines how important the general public finds forensic evidence by comparing decisions on guilt and punishment in criminal cases that involve forensic versus eyewitness testimony evidence and examining whether a CSI effect exists. Specifically, this experimental survey study utilized a 2 (crime type: murder or rape) × 4 (evidence type: DNA, fingerprint, victim eyewitness testimony, or bystander eyewitness testimony) ? 1 (no victim testimony for murder scenario) design, yielding seven vignettes scenarios to which participants were randomly assigned. Results indicate that forensic evidence was associated with more guilty verdicts and higher confidence in a guilty verdict. Forensic evidence did not change the expected sentence length and did not generally affect the ideal sentence length. However, for rape, respondents believed that the defendant should receive a longer sentence when forensic evidence was presented but forensic evidence did not alter likely sentence that respondents expected the defendant to receive. The results of this study did not support a CSI effect. Overall, this study suggests that forensic evidence – particularly DNA – has a stronger influence during the verdict stage than the sentencing stage.     

Field Experiments on Eyewitness Identification: Towards a Better Understanding of Pitfalls and Prospects

The Illinois pilot program on lineup procedures has helped sharpen the focus on the types of controls that are needed in eyewitness field experiments and the limits that exist for interpreting outcome measures (rates of suspect and filler identifications). A widely-known limitation of field experiments is that, unlike simulated crime experiments, the guilt or innocence of the suspects is not easily known independently of the behavior of the eyewitnesses. Less well appreciated is that the rate of identification of lineup fillers, although clearly errors, can be a misleading measure if the filler identification rate is used to assess which of two or more lineup procedures is the better procedure. Several examples are used to illustrate that there are clearly improper procedures that would yield fewer identifications of fillers than would their proper counterparts. For example, biased lineup structure (e.g., using poorly matched fillers) as well as suggestive lineup procedures (that can result from non-blind administration of lineups) would reduce filler identification errors compared to unbiased and non-suggestive procedures. Hence, under many circumstances filler identification rates can be misleading indicators of preferred methods. Comparisons of lineup procedures in future field experiments will not be easily accepted in the absence of double-blind administration methods in all conditions plus true random assignment to conditions.     

The Mitigating Effects of Suspicion on Post-Identification Feedback and on Retrospective Eyewitness Memory

Three studies examined procedures for reducing the post-identification feedback effect. After viewing a video event, participants were then asked to identify a suspect from a target-absent photo lineup. After making their identification, some participants were given information suggesting that their identification was correct, while others were given no information about the accuracy of their identification. Some participants who received confirming feedback were also given reasons to entertain suspicion regarding the motives of the lineup administrator, either immediately (Experiment 1) or after a one-week retention interval (Experiment 2). Suspicious perceivers failed to demonstrate the confidence inflation effects typically associated with confirming post-identification feedback. In Experiment 3, the confidence prophylactic effect was tested both immediately and after a one-week retention interval. The effect of confidence prophylactic varied with retention interval such that it eliminated the effects of post-identification feedback immediately but not after a retention interval. However, the suspicion manipulation eliminated the post-identification feedback effects at both time intervals. Both theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

诉讼证明的客观标准与主观标准

本文认为 ,诉讼证明主观标准不能作为我国的诉讼证明标准 ,只有“事实清楚 ,证据确实充分”的客观证明标准是我国诉讼证明普遍适用的证明标准。     

证人拒证行为的刑事立法及对策探讨

作者为拒证行为的刑事立法提供了参考的依据,并在此基础上,探析了拒证罪应具备的四个犯罪构成要件。