论刑事诉讼中鉴定权配置模式的选择

鉴定权配置问题是鉴定制度构建的基础和核心,在我国刑事诉讼中鉴定权的配置,有几种不同观点,笔者主张实行”双边对等配置”,这样设定较能体现诉讼的民主性,也有利体现法院的中立性、被动性和最终裁决的性质。     

被告方申请重新鉴定司法现状实证研究——以2019年全国法院刑事裁判文书为分析对象

重新鉴定作为刑事诉讼鉴定的重要内容,一直受学术界关注。为探究我国刑事诉讼被告方申请重新鉴定的真实情况,以2019年全国法院刑事裁判文书为分析对象,通过实证分析方法发现:被告方系刑事诉讼申请重新鉴定的主要主体,申请时间集中于一审庭审期间,法院对申请的审查偏于书面审查,在审查方法上大致可称为“五要件审查法”,处理结果上多为驳回,说明被告方关于申请重新鉴定权利的行使具有滞后性和形式性,法院审查重新鉴定的申请缺乏规范性指导,被告方申请重新鉴定启动难。为此,可从程序保障视角保障被告方申请重新鉴定权利的行使,从规范层面、技术层面和价值层面规范法官关于重新鉴定的审查和判断。     

强化司法鉴定“守门人”制度

题记：“法院之判决几乎以各鉴定机构之鉴定结果作为认定事实之依据．故鉴定制度设计是否周全，直接影响司法机关之审判品质，并可深刻强化对人民诉讼权利之保障。”因此，在科学证据受到推崇的新形势下，如何防止“伪科学”证据或“冒牌专家”的司法鉴定意见进入法庭，即如何设定“守门人”的职责。已成为我国司法鉴定法律制度重建的核心问题。     

法院的委托鉴定工作及其规范化 —基于《关于人民法院民事诉讼中委托鉴定审查工作若干问题的规定》的分析

法院的对外委托鉴定工作关系到鉴定质量与司法公正.为此,最高人民法院最新出台的《关于人民法院民事诉讼中委托鉴定审查工作若干问题的规定》分别强化了法院对鉴定事项、鉴定材料、鉴定机构、鉴定人、鉴定意见的审查以及对鉴定活动的监督.上述审查与监督措施,主要基于法院立场对鉴定机构、鉴定人进行制度管控,并呈现出明显的技术化特征,这难...     

略论司法鉴定中四项制度的完善——以审判实践为视角

司法鉴定是确保诉讼证据真实、合法、有效的重要手段,是诉讼科学化的客观需要,在诉讼过程中起着辅助实现司法公正、高效和权威的积极作用。然而司法实践中,司法鉴定面临鉴定人出庭率低、鉴定期限长、鉴定收费尚需规范、司法鉴定技术受限等客观问题。对此,除法院应作自身的改革之外,还需要统一鉴定法律依据,鉴定机构提高工作效率、完善鉴定人出庭制度、统一鉴定标准,密切与法院的配合。     

鉴定人员拒绝出庭怎么办

我是一名交通事故的受害者。在法院审理我要求赔偿的案件过程中，我申请对我的伤残程度进行鉴定。法院依法委托由某市医院司法鉴定所进行鉴定，鉴定结论为十级伤残，被告对此鉴定结果不能接受，向法院申请鉴定机构人员出庭接受质询。经法院书面通知，某市医院司法鉴定机构未派人出庭接受质询。法院对该鉴定意见未予采信，故作出了对我不利的判决。请问，对鉴定机构的这种行为，我该怎么办？     

关于法院系统设置鉴定机构的反思

法院系统设置鉴定机构在一定程度上为法院的审判活动提供了便利,然而这种制度设计违背了诉讼公正原则和诉讼效益原则,在实际运作中也产生了诸如诉讼关系、审级关系和利益关系等问题。权衡利弊,我国应当参照世界上绝大多数国家的做法,取消法院系统设置的鉴定机构,并进行相应的改革,主要是完善委托鉴定制度和设置技术顾问制度。     

法院对外委托法医学鉴定中的问题与制度完善

全国人大常委会《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》实施后,法院被取消了鉴定权,法院法医的工作重心转移到对外委托鉴定与技术咨询、审核上来。七年来,司法行政管理部门对社会鉴定机构的管理日趋完善,社会鉴定机构的鉴定水平有了较大幅度提高,已经能够满足司法实践的需要,但是仍然存在一些问题。从法院对外委托鉴定与技术咨询、审核的角度探析当前法医学鉴定中存在的问题,提出完善思路。     

论司法鉴定中的指印鉴定

随着司法改革的不断发展,司法鉴定的科学性、公正性、中立性越来越受到人们关注,而在司法鉴定中,指印鉴定在检材、样本方面与公、检、法所受理的鉴定有所不同,应从“吃透”检材,寻找确定特征,注意字迹对纹线的影响,鉴定结论和提高鉴定人员综合素质等方面做好鉴定工作。     

改革我国刑事鉴定启动权的思考——以被追诉人取证权的实现为切入

刑事鉴定启动权是刑事鉴定制度的核心，我国刑事鉴定启动权被国家职权机关完全垄断．被追诉人及其律师的申请权也无法得到保障。这种鉴定启动模式使辩方的取证权受到严重抑制，不仅无法形成控辫平等对抗的取证格局．而且对侦控方的鉴定活动辩方也无权参与和监督。学者们提出的“当事人启动制”和“法官启动制”的改革方案．因受各种因素的制约．在我国目前都不具有可行性。我国刑事鉴定启动权的改革应当以被追诉人取证权的保障为核心，实行“分步走”的战略，采取“渐进性”改革和“重构性”安排相结合的方法．旨在强化辩方对鉴定程序的参与，增强其获取鉴定结论这一科学证据的能力。“渐进性”改革就是把赋予辩方初次鉴定申请权、建立强制鉴定制度以及引入专家辅助人作为改革的近期目标：“重构性”安排是以构建控辩双方启动鉴定程序为主、法官启动鉴定程序为辅的启动模式作为改革的长远目标和发展方向。     

The future of parenting plan evaluations: A view from the trenches

As expectations rise for parenting plan evaluators to be well-trained, skilled, and knowledgeable in numerous subject areas, and scrutiny of evaluators' work intensifies, the pool of qualified evaluators is shrinking nationwide. The future of parenting plan evaluation as a forensic subspecialty relies upon the availability of competent and committed professionals to do this challenging work, yet few are entering the field. Five experienced parenting plan evaluators from various regions of the United States, including the authors, met for a roundtable discussion to ponder the future of parenting plan evaluations. The panel discussed what drew them to the work, their experiences “in the trenches,” and what has kept them committed to doing evaluations despite daunting challenges. Their views of the rewards and risks of doing the work, barriers and disincentives to newcomers entering the field, recommendations to new evaluators, and outlook for the future are presented.     

MEDIATIVE EVALUATIONS: THE PROS AND PERILS OF BLENDING ROLES

Child custody evaluators with experience in mediation may be tempted to use mediation skills and strategies in their evaluation processes. This article explores the benefits and risks of blending mediation with evaluation, comparing the perspectives of professionals and clients.     

The impact of program developers as evaluators on criminal recidivism: Results from meta-analyses of experimental and quasi-experimental research

Using meta-analysis, we report on an investigation of the evaluator's influence in the treatment setting on criminal recidivism outcomes. Many evaluators and users of evaluation of social interventions worry that mixing of the roles of program developer and program evaluator may bias results reported in intervention studies in a positive direction. We first review the results of prior investigations of this issue across 50 prior meta-analyses, finding 12 that tested the impact of investigator influence in the treatment setting. Eleven of these reported that effect size increased positively, sometimes substantially so, when evaluators were influential or involved in the treatment setting. We followed this with a meta-analysis of 300 randomized field trials in individually focused crime reduction, also finding intervention studies in which evaluators who were greatly influential in the treatment setting report consistently and substantially larger effect sizes than other types of evaluators. We discuss two major views — the ‘cynical’ and ‘high fidelity’ theories — on why this is consistently the case, and conclude with a further agenda for research.     

Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree?

Despite many studies that examine the reliability of competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations, few shed light on "field reliability," or agreement among forensic evaluators in routine practice. We reviewed 216 cases from Hawaii, which requires three separate evaluations from independent clinicians for each felony defendant referred for CST evaluation. Results revealed moderate agreement. In 71% of initial CST evaluations, all evaluators agreed about a defendant's competence or incompetence (kappa = .65). Agreement was somewhat lower (61%, kappa = .57) in re-evaluations of defendants who were originally found incompetent and sent for restoration services. We also examined the decisions judges made about a defendant's CST. When evaluators disagreed, judges tended to make decisions consistent with the majority opinion. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they more often did so to find a defendant incompetent than competent, suggesting a generally conservative approach. Overall, results reveal moderate agreement among independent evaluators in routine practice. But we discuss the potential for standardized training and methodology to further improve the field reliability of CST evaluations.     

科学证据的基本特征——兼谈法医学鉴定意见的审查

本文论述了科学证据应具备的基本特征。旨在帮助法官正确认识司法鉴定的本质,审查司法鉴定意见(或结论)的方法,以及法医学鉴定意见(或结论)可采信的条件。而对于司法鉴定人来说,正确认识司法鉴定意见(或结论)作为科学证据所应具备的基本特征,或作为科学证据被采信所应具备的基本条件,是做好司法鉴定工作的前提。     

ATTORNEYS' BELIEFS AND OPINIONS ABOUT CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

We surveyed a national sample of family law attorneys (N = 192) regarding their beliefs and opinions about child custody evaluations, particularly those performed by independent/private practitioners. Findings revealed participants' strongly preferred court‐ordered evaluations performed by doctoral‐level psychologists who assumed a neutral position. The participants expressed concern regarding procedures used by evaluators, the application of evaluation data to the Best Interests of the Child Standard, and certain report components. A clear majority supported evaluators making recommendations about custody and parenting time, but their satisfaction with these evaluations varied widely. Specific concerns and suggestions noted by the participants are highlighted; we conclude with recommendations.     

THE EMERGING FORENSIC ROLE FOR WORK PRODUCT REVIEW AND CASE ANALYSIS IN CHILD ACCESS AND PARENTING PLAN DISPUTES

An emerging forensic service is that of conducting a work product review of a court‐appointed child custody evaluator's evaluation and report. If the reviewer determines there are serious deficiencies in the work product, then the reviewer will provide consultation to the retaining attorney and expert testimony. The reviewer usually is in a hybrid role of consulting/advising the retaining attorney, testifying, and educating the court. Ethical issues in providing forensic services and rebuttal testimony as a reviewer are discussed. Both reviewers and evaluators have a duty to be objective and balanced in their analyses of data and issues. Both types of experts should strive to be helpful to the court and try to serve the best interests of children. Ethical nuances involving review work are discussed. Evaluator and reviewer share the same dataset. Evaluators need to take care to keep a high quality case record with legible interview notes. Reviewers provide a monitoring function for the court or a function of forensic quality control so the court will not be misled by expert testimony of evaluators that is based on flawed data collection and/or analysis. A list of questions is presented for reviewers to use in scrutinizing the quality of the custody evaluation. A list of questions is presented for examining the quality of the reviewer's own work product. The importance of a case analysis and use of conceptual frameworks by evaluators and reviewers is discussed.     

MAKING A PLACE AT THE TABLE:

This response to Timothy Tippins and Jeffrey Wittmann's article "Empirical and Ethical Problems with Custody Recommendations: A Call for Clinical Humility and Judicial Vigilance" builds upon the authors' conclusions that custody evaluations cannot and should not be a substitute for the socio-legal judgment of the best interests of the child. Recognizing that clinical humility and judicial vigilance may not be sufficient to restrain the misuse of psychological evaluation, we offer for consideration three structural changes that would provide for a more appropriate use of the skills and talents custody evaluators bring to legal decisions. We suggest using custody evaluators in the less adversarial setting of preparing parenting plans, revising the procedures by which custody evaluations are elicited in litigation, and adopting the approximation standard for child custody determinations.     

Criminal offense, psychiatric diagnosis, and psycholegal opinion: an analysis of 894 pretrial referrals

This article presents the results of a study of 894 criminal defendants referred by Virginia courts for evaluation of competency to stand trial or criminal responsibility. All evaluations were conducted on an outpatient basis by mental health professionals who had received specialized training in forensic evaluation. Findings as to the referral questions posed, the criminal offenses charged, and the clinical diagnoses and psycholegal opinions offered by the evaluators are described. Statistical analyses demonstrate significant relationships between both diagnosis and criminal charge and the psycholegal opinion rendered.     

SCIENTIFICALLY CRAFTED CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

This article proposes a model for the interdisciplinary colloboration of judges, attorneys, and evaluators prior to the writting of a court order for child custody evaluation in the formulation of specific psycholegal questions that guide the examination. These questions accurately reflect the concerns of the court, the attorneys, and the parties to the dispute while framing the evaluation questions within the behavioral sciences, suitable for evaluation by a mental health professional. Such a model best suits the court by providing information on specific, legally relevant areas of parenting, child development, and/or mental health useful to the trier of fact.