中国刑事专家辅助人向专家证人的角色转变

中国的刑事专家辅助人具有既类似于律师又类似于鉴定人、证人的多重属性;围绕专家辅助人意见的性质,也形成了质证方式说、鉴定意见说、证人证言说等多种观点。角色定位上的混乱,不仅造成了独具特色的鉴定人与专家辅助人的双轨制,而且常常使专家辅助人意见的法庭采信陷入困境。从最高人民法院有关专家辅助人的新近规定看,专家辅助人的角色呈现出向专家证人转变的趋势。这种转变的核心要求,一是实现鉴定人和专家辅助人的诉讼地位平等,专家辅助人意见和鉴定意见在专家证言意义上的证据效力平等;二是使专家辅助人回归专家证人本色,将强加给专家辅助人的不合理的质证职责交还给律师、检察官;三是提高律师、检察官熟练运用交叉询问规则、对科学证据进行质证的能力,充分发挥法官的科学证据“守门人”作用,以适应事实认定科学化的需要。     

Jurors'Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message

Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors'reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analyses of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the results of our study indicate that jurors consider both the messenger and the message in the course of evaluating the expert's credibility.     

Legal Options to Stop the Revival of Keystone XL Pipeline

Abstract

The construction and operation of the international pipeline well-known as Keystone XL would potentially contribute to the “game over of climate”. With a focus on combating climate change, the Obama Administration denied the permit application for the Keystone XL. After Trump took presidency, Keystone XL was revived as a result of the administration’s energy dominance policies. Indigenous activists joined by environmental groups have been resisting the revival. This article explores legal options to stop the revival of Keystone XL, consisting of legislative, regulatory and judicial actions at both federal and state levels within the U.S., and legal responses at the international level.     

Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony

Invalid expert witness testimony that overstated the precision and accuracy of forensic science procedures has been highlighted as a common factor in many wrongful conviction cases. This study assessed the ability of an opposing expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Participants (N = 155) acted as mock jurors in a sexual assault trial that contained both invalid forensic testimony regarding hair comparison evidence, and countering testimony from either a defense expert witness or judicial instructions. Results showed that the defense expert witness was successful in educating jurors regarding limitations in the initial expert's conclusions, leading to a greater number of not-guilty verdicts. The judicial instructions were shown to have no impact on verdict decisions. These findings suggest that providing opposing expert witnesses may be an effective safeguard against invalid forensic testimony in criminal trials.     

The Vernacular Mobilization of Human Rights in Myanmar's Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Movement

This article examines how activists build a movement for sexual orientation and gender identity minorities in Myanmar, a country that is known for violent suppression of protests and is undergoing political reform. Based on original fieldwork, it finds that activists deploy a strategy of “vernacular mobilization of human rights” to persuade others to join their cause despite the risks to personal safety and to get around political constraints on collective organizing. Conceptualized at the intersection of the cultural study of human rights and social movements scholarship, “vernacular mobilization of human rights” theorizes the relationship between vernacularization—the translation and local adaptation of human rights—and movement micromobilization, specifying how the former unfolds as collective action framing processes. Through vernacularization activities, such as human rights workshops, movement leaders reframe grievances and shift the attribution of blame to empower and recruit new activists. Furthermore, with these framing processes, they generate a political community with a collective identity and social networks that they use to continue expanding the movement. The article enriches debates about the implications of implementing human rights and understandings of the relationship between human rights and movement mobilization, especially under repressive or uncertain political conditions.     

Building Norms from the Grassroots Up: Divestment,Expressive Politics,and Climate Change

The fossil fuel divestment movement is at the forefront of civil society initiatives to raise public consciousness about the need for a “fossil‐free” future. Through the lens of the social movement literature, this article shows how the movement has harnessed grassroots activists, engaged in innovative and sometimes disruptive forms of protest, and used cognitive framing and symbolic politics to gain media interest and persuade the public of the importance and legitimacy of its claims as well as to promote a new social norm. The relative instrumental, structural, and discursive power of the movement and its adversaries is also examined, showing how, notwithstanding the fossil fuel industry's deeply embedded structural and instrumental power, the movement has managed to shift the contest onto a terrain where it holds a comparative advantage. Finally, the movement's role in nonstate climate governance is considered, taking account of its interactions with and impact on a range of other climate actors. This article's conclusion is that climate governance is not only an instrumental or pragmatic process of mandating changes in behavior but an expressive and symbolic one of nurturing a new norm and institutionalizing a new set of moral principles.     

Legal History and the Problem of the Long Civil Rights Movement

This essay offers a critical examination of use of the term “long civil rights movement” as a framework for understanding the legal history of the battle against racial inequality in twentieth‐century America. Proponents of the long movement argue that expanding the chronological boundaries of the movement beyond the 1950s and 1960s allows scholars to better capture the diverse social mobilization efforts and ideas that fueled the black freedom struggle. While not questioning the long framework's usefulness for studying the social movement dynamics of racial justice activism, I suggest that the long framework is of more limited value for those who seek to understand the development of civil rights, as a legal claim, particularly in the first half of the twentieth century. The tendency of long movement scholars to treat civil rights as a pliable category into which they can put any and all racial justice claims is in tension with historical understandings of the term. Susan Carle's Defining the Struggle: National Organizing for Racial Justice, 1880–1915 suggests an alternative approach. Her detailed and nuanced account of a period in American history when racial justice activists understood civil rights as a relatively narrow subset of legal remedies within a much broader struggle for racial equality indicates the need for an alternate history of civil rights—one that places the evolving, contested, and historically particularized concept of civil rights at the center of inquiry.     

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.     

Strange Bedfellows: How an Anticipatory Countermovement Brought Same‐Sex Marriage into the Public Arena

Since the 1980s, social movement scholars have investigated the dynamic of movement/countermovement interaction. Most of these studies posit movements as initiators, with countermovements reacting to their challenges. Yet sometimes a movement supports an agenda in response to a countermovement that engages in what we call “anticipatory countermobilization.” We interviewed ten leading LGBT activists to explore the hypothesis that the LGBT movement was brought to the fight for marriage equality by the anticipatory countermobilization of social conservatives who opposed same‐sex marriage before there was a realistic prospect that it would be recognized by the courts or political actors. Our findings reinforce the existing scholarship, but also go beyond it in emphasizing a triangular relationship among social movement organizations, countermovement organizations, and grassroots supporters of same‐sex marriage. More broadly, the evidence suggests the need for a more reciprocal understanding of the relations among movements, countermovements, and sociolegal change.     

Expert psychological testimony

Experimental psychologists increasingly are asked to give expert testimony in court, especially with regard to issues of eyewitness reliability. Whether or not experimental psychologists should give expert testimony on these matters is a controversial issue. The empirical literature suggests that potential jurors do not have a good understanding of the variables influencing eyewitness accuracy and that they cannot discriminate adequately between accurate and false eyewitness identification testimony. Experiments using expert testimony as a treatment variable, however, have not made a definitive case that expert testimony can benefit trial outcomes. The question of whether or not to give expert testimony must be broadened to consider not only the effects on verdicts but also the effects of expert testimony on the process by which verdicts are reached, the practices of police in subsequent investigations, the public's view of psychology, the practices of judges in subsequent cases, and the interaction between expert testimony and research activities.     

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.     

Effects of psychopathy and violence risk testimony on mock juror perceptions of dangerousness in a capital murder trial

The recent introduction of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) into the sentencing phase of capital murder trials has heightened concerns about the potentially prejudicial impact of such information on jurors, who might give disproportionate weight to this diagnosis when determining whether a defendant is a “continuing threat to society”. To investigate this issue, 238 undergraduates read a case summary based on US v. Barnette ( ), in which prosecution testimony was presented regarding the presence of a mental disorder (psychopathy, psychosis, or no disorder). Compared to the “no disorder” condition, participants rated psychopathic defendants as more likely to be violent in the future, even though testimony related to level of risk (high or low) was held constant. The difference in perceived dangerousness across the psychopathy and no disorder groups was particularly pronounced when the experts described the defendant as being at low risk. A similar pattern of effects was noted for the psychosis condition, suggesting that the impact of mental disorder testimony on perceptions of dangerousness may not necessarily be specific to the PCL-R.     

Barring ultimate issue testimony

This research focuses on one of the major changes wrought by the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: the exclusion of expert mental health testimony on the “ultimate issue,” that is, testimony specifically addressing the expert's opinion that the defendant is sane or insane. Subjects in this research were presented with 1 of 10 variants of an insanity case in which experts testified for the defense, prosecution, both, or neither. The testimony was at one of three levels: diagnostic only, penultimate issue, or ultimate issue. Results showed that level of testimony had no effect on the verdict pattern. There was evidence to suggest that this effect may occur because jurors infer, and/or mistakenly recall, higher levels of expert testimony than was actually presented to them. In addition, general and specific constructs (Finkel & Handel, 1989) that predict verdict yieldedR ² values from .500 to .668 and were not significantly affected by the level of expert testimony. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

20世纪90年代以来的合并控制理论探析

为了适应 20世纪 90年代以来并购活动的日益增长,规制者运用“革新市场”和“单方效果”来支持积极的反托拉斯执法活动。“革新市场”理论通过对一个合并对相关市场上的研究和发展的影响来评估技术领先企业之间的合并。“单方效果”理论根据合并企业独自对相关市场上价格产生影响的能力来评估一个合并。     

Trials of battered women who kill: the impact of alternative forms of expert evidence

The introduction of battered woman syndrome testimony in trials of battered women who have killed has stirred considerable debate within the psycholegal community. Much of the controversy stems from the testimony's focus on the woman's passivity, as well as its partrayal of a single profile of battered women. In light of these concerns, proposals to alter the content of the testimony (e.g., dropping the syndrome terminology, focus on battered women's social reality as opposed to their psychological state and reactions) have surfaced. In the present research both the woman's prior response history (passive, active) and the presence of expert testimony (battered woman syndrome, social agency, no expert control) were manipulated in a homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Overall, participants, drawn from both a university (N=195) and a nonuniversity setting (N=202), rendered more lenient verdicts and provided more favorable evaluations of the defendant's claim of self defense in the presence of expert testimony (either form) compared to a no expert control. Further, these effects were more pronounced for the student than the nonstudent sample. Implications of these findings for the use of expert evidence pertaining to battered women are discussed.