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。     

Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part I--A quantitative analysis of the exclusion of forensic identification science evidence

The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael transformed the way scientific expert evidence was reviewed in courts across the United States. To gauge the impact of these rulings on the admission of forensic identification evidence, the authors analyzed 548 judicial opinions from cases where admission of such evidence was challenged. Eighty-one cases (15%) involved exclusion or limitation of identification evidence, with 50 (65.7%) of these failing to meet the "reliability" threshold. This was largely because of a failure to demonstrate a sufficient scientific foundation for either the technique (27 cases) or the expert's conclusions (17 cases). The incidence of exclusion/limitation because of a lack of demonstrable reliability suggests that there is a continuing need for the forensic sciences to pursue research validating their underlying theories and techniques of identification to ensure their continued acceptance by the courts.     

The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?

Flawed expert scientific testimony has compromised truth finding in American litigation, including in medical malpractice and in product liability cases. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court in Daubert and other cases have established standards for testimony that include reliability and relevance, and established judges as gatekeepers. However, because of lack of understanding of scientific issues, judges have problems with this role, and juries have difficulties with scientific evidence. Professionals and the judiciary have made some advances, but a better system involving the court's use of neutral experts and a mechanism to hold experts accountable for improprieties is needed.     

科学与法律领域的真相

审判过程并非仅仅是为了"查明真相"。自从美国的法律系统开始使用科学证人以来,法律领域就面临着混乱的局面。自从Frye规则到Daubert标准再到Kumho Tire标准,乃至发展为修改后的《联邦证据规则》702条,尽管法律系统经历了上述诸多努力,人们仍然不会相信法律系统能够从科学信息中获得预期的收益。科学主张和理论或真或假,它们的真或假是一个客观的问题。法律裁决可以断定法律真理为真,也可以断定"所谓的科学真理"为真。只有科学命题所描述的自然界现象和事件的性质——而非有关证据可靠性的法律裁决,也非法庭上的论证和交叉询问——能够证明真的科学命题为真,证明假的科学命题为假。     

Daubert and the Exclusionary Ethos: The Convergence of Corporate and Judicial Attitudes towards the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Tort Litigation*

The article traces the way admissibility jurisprudence following Daubert has come to emphasize the importance of strict judicial gatekeeping; making it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in tort and product liability litigation. This exclusionary ethos appears to have been shaped by a range of values and interests which appear closely aligned to the perspectives promoted by corporate-sponsored proponents of tort and evidence reform. The effects of the exclusionary ethos are explored through an example of judicial gatekeeping in recent mobile telephone litigation and a review of judicial surveys of post- Daubert attitudes toward expert evidence. The role of corporate-sponsored amicus briefs in the influential Supreme Court Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v Carmichael appeal, extra-legal mobilization by conservative think tanks in litigation around electric and magnetic fields (EMF), and a qualitative citation analysis of federal court judgments, are then used in a preliminary attempt to trace the influence of corporate lobbying and social problem rhetorics on judicial attitudes and practice.     

Forensic Engineering Critique of Mold Expert Opinions

Selecting a technical professional can be difficult. Using the court's guidelines can serve as a useful template for gauging qualifications. Since 1993 (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals 1993), the standard for admitting expert testimony has become increasingly more rigorous, as it has become better defined by subsequent case law and amended state statutes. This may contribute to increased dependence on expert reports to clarify issues, and serve as aids to negotiated settlements. Two examples are discussed where experts did not meet the criteria in this template.     

Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part II--judicial reasoning in decisions to exclude forensic identification evidence on grounds of reliability

Many studies regarding the legal status of forensic science have relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., and its progeny in order to make subsequent recommendations or rebuttals. This paper focuses on a more pragmatic approach to analyzing forensic science's immediate deficiencies by considering a qualitative analysis of actual judicial reasoning where forensic identification evidence has been excluded on reliability grounds since the Daubert precedent. Reliance on general acceptance is becoming insufficient as proof of the admissibility of forensic evidence. The citation of unfounded statistics, error rates and certainties, a failure to document the analytical process or follow standardized procedures, and the existence of observe bias represent some of the concerns that have lead to the exclusion or limitation of forensic identification evidence. Analysis of these reasons may serve to refocus forensic practitioners' testimony, resources, and research toward rectifying shortfalls in these areas.     

THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING

The legal standards for admissibility of expert testimony have recently been raised following several U.S. Supreme Court decisins. Although forensic mental health experts have relied on psychological testing as a method of data collection for many years, the scientific basis of such testing has traditionally gone unquestioned in court. Given the increased scrutiny currently being applied to expert testimony, it is more important now than ever for attorneys, judges and forensic experts to understand the scientific principles underlying psychological tests. In this article, the scientific principles of validity and reliability are explained, and scientifically acceptable methods for the forensic use of psychological testing are discussed. The application of recent case law to several well-known tests is described.     

The Impact of Daubert on the Admissibility of Forensic Anthropology Expert Testimony

Forensic anthropologists anticipated a significant impact from the 1993 Supreme Court Daubert decision, which addressed the standard of admissibility for expert testimony. In response, many forensic articles cited Daubert in the search for objective techniques or a critique of established subjective methods. This study examines challenges to forensic anthropological expert testimony to evaluate whether Daubert has actually affected the admissibility of such testimony. Thirty cases were identified that addressed the admissibility of the testimony, including 14 cases prior to Daubert and 16 after Daubert. Examination of these cases indicates that post‐Daubert cases do not result in more exclusions. Yet, this lack of exclusions may instead be viewed as a manifestation of the field's overall surge toward more objective and quantifiable techniques in a self‐regulating response to Daubert.     

美国专家证言的可采性研究——以美国判例与立法的互动为中心

美国对专家证言的可采性经历了弗赖伊判例"普遍接受标准"的限定到《联邦证据规则》对专家证言"关联性"和"有用性"的立法扩张,催生了达伯特判例的"综合观察标准",又因"乔因纳"、"锦湖轮胎"判例对达伯特判例的冲击,引发了涉及科学、技术和经验知识专家证言可采性的多种判断标准的纷争,导致《联邦证据规则》作出了限缩性的修正。判例与立法的互动背后演绎着专家证言可采性的判断权由"科技社群"向"法官"移转,最终法官扮演了专家证言进入法庭"守门人"的角色。美国专家证言可采性判断标准迷失于判例促发立法的互动,为我国法官如何走出依赖原有内部设立鉴定人积习提供了有益的启迪和可借鉴的经验。     

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。     

专家证据：美国的经验与教训

本文第一部分解释为何评价专家证据的效力会存在特殊的认识论困境。第二部分追溯不同规则和程序的历史,美国法律制度通过这些规则和程序尽力保障或控制严重依赖的专家证据的质量—从Frye规则、联邦证据规则、Daubert三部曲到近代专家证人出庭的宪法案件,法庭指定专家的试验以及法官科学教育。第三和最后一部分指出从这些有限的成功经验中吸取的教训,并且探索未来更好的策略。     

论表象时代的终结

在科学证言的采信上，法院从有效性的表象或者替代者角度制定了标准，在19世纪和20世纪早期，法院依赖于市场的外行人对专家的行当的普遍接受这一表象。依赖于表象既会使法院犯下假阴性的错误，也会使法院犯下假阳性的错误。在Daubert案中，法院抛弃老旧的Frye普遍接受表象．要求法官要进行认识论探究，以确定所提出的证言是否值得...     

The Impact of Negative Forensic Evidence on Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of a Trial of Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault

Legal concerns with regard to the adverse impact of a negative toxicological screening for date-rape drugs in a case of drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) were the focus of a recent Canadian case (R. v. Alouache, 2003). To assess the impact of a negative forensic report, as well as the impact of expert testimony explaining the many factors that may contribute to a negative outcome, participants (N=171) received a written trial stimulus in which the forensic evidence (negative report, negative report plus expert testimony, no negative report and no expert testimony control) and the complainant's beverage consumption (alcohol, cola) were systematically varied. Results indicate that a negative finding in the absence of expert testimony produced greater verdict leniency and more favourable evaluations of the defendant's case. In contrast, no differences were found between the case in which the expert testified and a case in which the negative report and expert testimony were omitted.

---

     

The Expert Witness. Neither Frey nor Daubert Solved the Problem. What Can Be Done?

Expert testimony flawed by intent or ignorance, has compromised truth finding in American litigation, including in medical malpractice and in product liability cases, where scientific evidence is at issue. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court in Daubert and its progeny have established standards for testimony that include reliability and relevance, and established judges as gatekeepers. However, because of lack of understanding of scientific issues, judges have problems with this role, and juries have even more problems in sorting out scientific evidence. Professionals and the judiciary have made some advances in solving some of these problems, but a better system involving the court's use of neutral experts and a mechanism to hold experts accountable for improprieties is needed.     

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.     

Police psychology: The influence of Daubert and its progeny

In the current legal atmosphere, any practicing professionals, including police psychologists, may expect to have their decisions challenged in court. If such a challenge is not met, it may have a disastrous financial and reputational impact for both the psychologist (and other expert consultant) and the employer or contractor by whom the psychologist has been retained. The rules for expert witness qualification throughout the nation have been very strongly effected by the introduction of the Federal Rules of Evidence in 1975 and subsequent case law, particularly theDaubert, Joiner, andKumho Tire Supreme Court decisions. This article examines the history of the development of theDaubert Standard and proposes principles for potential expert witnesses in order to minimize the likelihood of aversive consequences, such as disqualification or malpractice accusations. Authors' Note: Cary Rostow, Ph.D., is president of Matrix, Inc., Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and is in private practice in Baton Rouge. He holds a Diplomate in Police and Criminal Psychology from the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology. Robert Davis, Ph.D., is executive vicepresident and director of science, research, and development, for Matrix, Inc., and has a private practice in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He holds a Diplomate from the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology. Judith Levy, Ph.D., is currently a postdoctoral fellow at Matrix, Inc.