Juror common understanding and the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome evidence in court

Expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome has been used in sexual assault cases to corroborate the victim's complaint and to educate the jury. One of the primary arguments against the admissibility of this testimony is that it is not helpful because most jurors are adequately informed about rape and rape victim behavior. To test this assumption, a Sexual Assault Questionnaire (SAQ) was administered to experts on rape and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and two nonexpert comparison groups. Results indicated that the nonexperts were not well informed on many rape-related issues and were significantly less knowledgeable than the expert groups. The data also showed considerable consensus among the experts about the current scientific database on rape trauma. The implications of these results for the use of expert psychological testimony on rape trauma syndrome in court are discussed.     

Forensic Facial Comparison: Issues of Admissibility in the Development of Novel Analytical Technique

Much contemporary debate in forensic science concerns validity and admissibility of scientific evidence in court. In this paper, three current approaches to facial identification—image superimposition, photogrammetry, and morphological analysis—are considered with regard to criteria for scientific evidence in the United States, and England, and Wales. The aim of the paper is to assess the extent to which facial image comparison meets criteria of admissibility in these jurisdictions. The method used is a comparative evaluation of the methods of facial image comparison and their underlying premises against the range of admissibility criteria reported in court rulings and relevant judicial and scientific inquiries in the United States and the United Kingdom. While the techniques of facial image comparison are generally accepted within their practitioner communities, they are not tested, and their error rates are unknown. On that basis, the methods of facial image comparison would appear not to meet the anticipated standards. They are, nevertheless, admitted in court in the United States, and England, and Wales. This paper concludes that further research in science and law will be necessary to more definitively establish admissibility of facial image comparison evidence, as it will for other nascent and novel methods that are potentially influential in court proceedings.     

测谎结论与证据的“有限采用规则”

识别谎言是司法人员的基本职能；人类在数千年的司法实践中一直在探索识别谎言的有效方法。测谎仪是一种科学的心理测试仪器，但是其结论并非百分之百的准确。测谎技术是犯罪侦查技术的组成部分，也是提高侦查科学化程度的途径之一。测谎技术可以在犯罪侦查中发挥重要的作用，这是毫无疑问的。但是，测谎结论能否成为诉讼中的证据，这是另外一个问题。我们应该给测谎结论以正确定位：它就是一种普普通通的证据，而且是“有限采用＂的证据。     

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。     

科学标准在社会和法庭科学证据中的应用

在当今的司法程序中越来越多地应用科学技术来证明争议事实,但这种应用也存在一些争议和问题。有关证据和证明程序规则的存在．在本质上,并没有同科学证据的应用和采纳在任何方式上存在冲突。相反,如果存在非认知性的程序规则,其结果是这样的规则应该被撤销。除了物理、化学、工程学和遗传学等“解释性科学”得以广泛应用之外,心理学、社会学...     

Independent judicial research in the Daubert age

The Supreme Court's Daubert trilogy places judges in the unenviable position of assessing the reliability of often unfamiliar and complex scientific expert testimony. Over the past decade, scholars have therefore explored various ways of helping judges with their new gatekeeping responsibilities. Unfortunately, the two dominant approaches, which focus on doctrinal tests and external assistance mechanisms, have been largely ineffective. This Article advocates for a neglected but important method for improving scientific decisionmaking--independent judicial research. It argues that judges facing unfamiliar and complex scientific admissibility decisions can and should engage in independent library research to better educate themselves about the underlying principles and methods. Independent research, however, is controversial. A survey of state appellate judges shows sharp divisions on the issue, and at the same time, the rules governing independent research are astonishingly unclear. The Article responds to the likely objections some judges have to independent research and also offers a way of interpreting the existing laws to permit the practice. Finally, the Article assesses independent research's chances for success as a method of scientific evidence reform. Based on the survey results, it concludes that a substantial number of judges will indeed take up the mantle of independent research. An equally substantial portion will likely resist, however, raising deeper issues about the importance of uniformity in judicial practice.     

确立我国刑事诉讼证据可采性规则体系的新思考

刑事诉讼证据可采性规则是英美法系中重要的证据规则。从完善证据立法、推进司法改革的角度 ,我们应当确立具有中国特色的刑事诉讼证据可采性规则体系 ,该体系应当由不可采规则、有限可采规则、附条件可采规则和完全可采规则构成     

再论如何正确应用DNA证据

以英美法系和我国司法实践中鉴定人角色差异为视野,深入探讨DNA证据应用领域中的三个经典命题的推导主体,明确鉴定人在DNA证据应用中的职责权限,避免DNA证据被错误解读和应用,并尝试以证据的相关性、可采性和证明力为基础,探讨我国司法实践中DNA证据正确应用的途径.     

Forensic science standards in fast-changing environments

Regulatory trends in forensic science point strongly to the need for exhaustive testing of all findings and tools. At the same time a number of jurisdictions suggest a judicial test for the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. But in fields such as computers and cellphones, the rate of change is faster than the normal times required for peer-reviewed publication. One route to admitting less-than-perfect findings from forensic science is via a re-evaluation of the role of expert evidence and in particular pre-trial meetings between experts.     

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.     

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.     

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。     

论科学证据的采信——以“认知”与“评价”为视角的观察与反思

科学证据采信的疑难在于认知因素与评价因素的综合影响。通过对科学证据特有的＂认知—评价＂结构分析和比较科学证据采信中的＂认知＂因素与＂评价＂因素,科学证据采信疑难的症结在于,科学认知与经验认知、专家评价与裁判者评价、认知与评价之间的差异所导致的不同思维方法、评价标准之间的张力。对裁判者采信科学证据特有的＂认知过程与评价过程＂进行分析,澄清理论上的疑惑和为裁判者采信科学证据提供清晰的思路。对科学证据采信的主体要素、标准要素和程序要素进行检讨和反思,构建我国科学证据采信机制。     

The over-citation of Daubert in forensic anthropology

The 1993 US Supreme Court decision Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. presented new guidance for the judicial assessment of expert witness evidence and testimony in the determination of admissibility. Despite the rarity of admissibility challenges to forensic anthropology evidence, Daubert is frequently cited in published forensic anthropology research. This study undertook a qualitative thematic analysis of forensic anthropology articles published in the Journal of Forensic Sciences to assess why authors continue to cite Daubert and express concerns over potential exclusion. The results show a significant increase in the number of articles that cite legal admissibility standards over time (p < 0.001). Authors frequently cite these standards to contextualize their results within the Daubert framework or to justify the need for their research. Notably, many articles present Daubert as a constraining force, misinterpreting the guidelines as rigid criteria or that they require methods to be strictly quantitative. However, Daubert was intended to be a flexible tool for judges—not a standard or instruction for scientists. While it was reasonable to reflect on the scientific rigor of methods in the wake of the Daubert decision, a new perspective is warranted in which forensic anthropologists shift their focus from trying to “satisfy” admissibility guidelines to adopting quality assurance measures that minimize error and ensure confidence in analytical results, and developing and using methods that are grounded in good science—which is important regardless of whether or not the results are ever the subject of a trial.     

在案件鉴定中对整体分离痕迹的重新认识

整体分离痕迹在交通肇事逃逸案件现场经常会出现，在盗窃、杀人、强奸、爆炸等刑事案件现场也可能会出现。通过相关典型案例的评析，重新认识了整体分离痕迹概念中整体物质和新界面的涵义，从而对概念进行了新的诠释。对于难度较大的采用分解方式分离的整体物质，归纳出鉴定时可选取的分离特征。这对于增强整体分离痕迹在法庭上的可采性，提高这种科学证据的价值，使其在案件侦破过程中发挥更大的作用很有裨益。     

奸淫幼女构成犯罪应以明知为前提 --为一个司法解释辩护

在严格责任与罪过责任分立的基础上,奸淫幼女构成犯罪必须以明知为前提,这样才能在保护幼女和保护被告人的合法权益之间求得一种法治视野下的平衡.应当摈弃"应当知道"的传统提法,而把奸淫幼女的明知分为确切知道和推定知道两种.从最高法院关于奸淫幼女问题的司法解释出发,我国现行的刑事司法解释体制及其形式应该逐渐由抽象的司法解释过渡到个案性质的司法解释,再进一步过渡到判例制度.     

英国法中司法认定作为证据的可采性分析-兼与美国证据法作比较

司法认定所依据的事实在随后发生的诉讼中有时会成为案件的争点问题，而将司法认定作为证据来证明争议的事实是否具有可采性是一个复杂的问题：要对这一问题作出规定，不仅需要考虑不同类型诉讼的审判方式、证明标准，还要考虑公正、程序滥用等公共政策。英国普通法实践最先通过Hollington案在这一问题上表明了立场，然而随着质疑的产生以及英国法对公正性日益重视，法律改革委员会和刑事法律修订委员会渐渐抛弃了普通法所确立的Hollington规则，对包括先前定罪在内的司法认定作为证明其所依据的事实之证据是否可采作出了具体细致的规定。在同为英美法系的美国，因普通法实践及政策考量等方面的差异，在这一问题上，《美国联邦证据规则》的规定与英国证据法有所不同。     

司法证明机理：一个亟待开拓的研究领域

司法证明机理是指由多方证明主体共同参与进行证据推理活动的内在规律和原理。没有对证明机理的深入把握,就难以通过"证据群"获得可靠的事实认定结论。近年来,英美学者致力于对证明机理的探索,开辟了一个全新的交叉学科领域。证明机理的研究对于摆脱司法证明的现实困境具有重要意义。我们应当批判地吸收和借鉴英美"新证据学"的研究成果,综合运用系统论、逻辑学、心理学、语言学、行为科学等多种研究方法进行系统化研究,以期实现司法证明的科学化。     

Understanding rape and sexual assault: 20 years of progress and future directions

During the past 20 years, researchers have documented the widespread problem of rape in American society. Approximately one in four women are raped in their adult lifetime, which causes severe psychological distress and long-term physical health problems. The impact of sexual assault extends far beyond rape survivors as their family, friends, and significant others are also negatively affected. Moreover, those who help rape victims, such as rape victim advocates, therapists, as well as sexual assault researchers, can experience vicarious trauma. Future research and advocacy should focus on improving the community response to rape and the prevention of sexual assault.