从鉴定结论到鉴定意见——浅析鉴定性证据材料的刑事诉讼规则

本文简析"鉴定结论"修改为"鉴定意见",显现这种修改的立法本意,折射新刑事诉讼法的改革方向,再结合鉴定意见的属性,通过对新刑事诉讼法有关鉴定人出庭、鉴定意见审查判断的把握,理清鉴定人出庭保护、鉴定意见专家评议等配套措施,以便司法鉴定性证据在实践中能有效地贯彻实施。     

制定法医出庭预案 主动把握应询质量

为了提升鉴定人出庭应对质询的质量,开展出庭应询能力的指导和培训是极为必要的。本文作者试图就出庭应对焦点争议、制作出庭预案等问题,提供一些初浅体会,与同仁交流。1明确法医鉴定人出庭的性质按照法律规定,"鉴定意见"被赋予进入诉讼的资格,体现司法证据属性。把"鉴定结论"修改为"鉴定意见"正是其集客观性、科学性和主观性于一身的     

制定法医出庭预案 主动把握应询质量

正为了提升鉴定人出庭应对质询的质量,开展出庭应询能力的指导和培训是极为必要的。本文作者试图就出庭应对焦点争议、制作出庭预案等问题,提供一些初浅体会,与同仁交流。1明确法医鉴定人出庭的性质按照法律规定,"鉴定意见"被赋予进入诉讼的资格,体现司法证据属性。把"鉴定结论"修改为"鉴定意见"正是其集客观性、科学性和主观性于一身的     

关于法医鉴定人出庭作证及其表达的有关问题

新实施的《刑事诉讼法》~([1])把法定证据之一的鉴定结论修改为鉴定意见,并且规定用作证据使用的鉴定意见须经过法庭质证,同时规定:"公诉人、当事人或者辩护人、诉讼代理人对鉴定意见有异议,人民法院认为鉴定人有必要出庭的,鉴定人应当出庭作证。经人民法院通知,鉴定人拒不出庭作证的,鉴定意见不得作为定案的根据。公诉人、当事人和辩护人、诉讼代理人可以申请法庭通知有专门知识的人出庭,就鉴定人作出的鉴定意见提出意见。"《刑事诉讼法》~([1])的上述规定,对司法实践中如何正确运用鉴定意见,特别是如何通过庭审的诉讼活动,保障鉴定意见正确地得以采信提出了一个新的课题。为此出具鉴定意见的鉴定人员出庭作证并对鉴定意见进行相应的表达,是鉴定人接受质证必须要面对的新问题。     

《行政诉讼法》中有关鉴定条款的修改与完善

《行政诉讼法》自1990年施行以来,其中与司法鉴定相关的规定已明显不适应社会发展的需要,而学者在相关的修改建议稿中缺乏对鉴定条款的关注,这不仅忽视了司法鉴定领域近些年来的改革成果,而且不利于行政诉讼法整体的发展与完善。因此,有必要在此次修改行政诉讼法的过程中就鉴定意见作为证据的名称、鉴定启动权、鉴定人出庭的法律后果、以及有专门知识的人出庭协助公诉人、当事人和辩护人、诉讼代理人就鉴定意见提出意见等方面做出修改,使得三大诉讼法中的司法鉴定改革的精神趋于一致。     

鉴定人出庭质证的注意事项

笔者现将法医鉴定人出庭的一些注意事项介绍如下,供法医同仁出庭时借鉴。1鉴定人出庭前应注意的问题1.1全面回顾鉴定意见的出具过程鉴定人出庭质证是鉴定人全面阐述个人观点及鉴定意见如何得出的过程,也是让非专业人员包括合议庭成员在很短时间内,消除疑虑、认知鉴定结论的过程。因此鉴定人出庭前要准备充分,首先是调取相     

鉴定人出庭作证新论——兼论新《刑事诉讼法》的相关条款

近年来,刑事诉讼中诸多冤假错案暴露出有瑕疵的鉴定意见造成法官对案件事实认定错误的问题,使鉴定人不出庭现象备受指摘,各方要求鉴定人出庭的呼声不绝于耳。然而,鉴定人出庭作证必须以案件具备其出庭必要性为前提,在鉴定意见质证机制尚未完善之前,如若忽视质证效果而一味强调鉴定人出庭,无异于叶公好龙。深刻洞察制约鉴定人出庭之因素,理性评估出庭作证之效果,客观认识质证功能虚化之成因,才能有助于鉴定意见的审查判断,科学构建鉴定人出庭作证的机制。     

鉴定人出庭质证的注意事项

正笔者现将法医鉴定人出庭的一些注意事项介绍如下,供法医同仁出庭时借鉴。1鉴定人出庭前应注意的问题1.1全面回顾鉴定意见的出具过程鉴定人出庭质证是鉴定人全面阐述个人观点及鉴定意见如何得出的过程,也是让非专业人员包括合议庭成员在很短时间内,消除疑虑、认知鉴定结论的过程。因此鉴定人出庭前要准备充分,首先是调取相     

人民检察院鉴定人出庭作证之初探

修改后的《刑事诉讼法》对鉴定人出庭作证,鉴定人拒不出庭作证的后果,以及有专门知识的人出庭等进行了一系列规定,对鉴定意见的证据资格提出了更高要求。我国刑事诉讼中鉴定人的出庭率一直较低,也是人民检察院鉴定人的弱项。人民检察院鉴定人出庭作证,除了依法接受当事人、辩护人、有专门知识的人等质证外,对人民检察院的公诉工作还将产生重要影响。为尽快适应新形势、新要求,对人民检察院鉴定人出庭前的工作机制,出庭作证的应答规范,以及应对专家辅助人等问题进行初步研究,以期对实际工作有所帮助。     

司法鉴定人出庭质证若干问题研究

诉讼实践中,司法鉴定人出庭率低已成为我国审判方式改革过程中的一大顽疾。这一问题的现实存在,不仅令鉴定意见质证流于形式,更使得直接言词原则无法在庭审中发挥其应用功效。诚然,我国已通过刑诉法、民诉法的修改,对司法鉴定人出庭作出了明确规定,但现行法律中对于司法鉴定人出庭权利与义务的规定严重失衡,出庭质证保护等规定亦极为笼统,缺乏可操作性。为此,有必要进一步从制度上保障司法鉴定人出庭质证的差旅费用和经济补偿,并加强对其出庭质证安全的保护措施。通过制度性构建与优化,探索司法鉴定人出庭质证的应然路径。     

论法医学鉴定人出庭作证

本文探讨法庭作证的价值、方法。着重研究了法医学鉴定人的素质与鉴定结论的价值。最后息结指出只有高素质的法医学鉴定人才能承担新世纪的鉴定重任。使法庭作证永远走向成功。     

完善刑事司法鉴定体制的新思考

新修改的《刑事诉讼法》对与司法鉴定有关的人身安全保护问题、鉴定人出庭作证问题以及有专门知识的人出庭等问题予以了规定。这不仅对司法鉴定管理工作具有积极意义,而且也具有一定的挑战性。据此,就新《刑事诉讼法》对司法鉴定管理体制、机制改革相关工作提出建议。     

关于刑事诉讼法修改中有关司法鉴定问题的思考

由省级人民政府指定的医院进行司法鉴定,不仅限制了司法鉴定机构的执业权利,造成法律适用上的混乱,而且在实践中也不具有可行性。此外,对于鉴定人无正当理由拒绝出庭作证的法律责任,无论是从法院与鉴定人的关系,鉴定人强制出庭作证来看,还是从司法拘留的适用性质来看,都不应当强制鉴定人出庭。上述是刑事诉讼法中有关司法鉴定的两个重要问题,应当借此次修改的机会,完善刑事诉讼领域的司法鉴定制度,促进法律协调统一。     

治理我国实践中司法鉴定失序的正途

司法鉴定制度作为司法制度的组成部分在诉讼中发挥着关键性的作用。然而,在我国司法实践中因相关职权履行不到位衍生了鉴定失序的现象,尤其是目前“诉讼掮客”引发的“鉴定黄牛”,更加剧了司法鉴定的乱象。由于理论对鉴定失序的原因研究不充分,司法实践对此现象分析的错位,在一定程度上干扰了司法鉴定制度改革的方向。基于此,深化司法鉴定制度改革更需要在强化司法行政有效管理和保障鉴定能力提高的基础上,更需要司法机关在实践中积极地扮演“第二守门员”的角色,履行鉴定启动决定权和鉴定使用选择权的控制职能,借助于鉴定人出庭作证来控制重复鉴定,同时还应通过保障当事人的鉴定权利使司法机关采纳鉴定意见获得可接受性,进而降低当事人重复鉴定的欲望,使司法实践中鉴定失序在正途中被不断纠正。     

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.     

抓住机遇 迎接挑战 谋求发展——《刑诉法修正案（草案）》关于鉴定结论等问题的新变化

《刑事诉讼法修正案（草案）》将于2012年3月提交全国人大审议通过。其中对鉴定结论作了科学定位,对鉴定人出庭作证及拒不出庭的法律后果作出了有别于普通证人的明确规定。这是由鉴定证据的特殊性和鉴定人的特殊身份所决定的。这对司法鉴定机构及从业人员既是挑战,又是机遇;应当抓住机遇,迎接挑战,谋求发展。     

Forensic Confirmation Bias: Do Jurors Discount Examiners Who Were Exposed to Task-Irrelevant Information?*†

Knowledge of task-irrelevant information influences judgments of forensic science evidence and thereby undermines their probative value (i.e., forensic confirmation bias). The current studies tested whether laypeople discount the opinion of a forensic examiner who had a priori knowledge of biasing information (i.e., a defendant's confession) that could have influenced his opinion. In three experiments, laypeople (N = 765) read and evaluated a trial summary which, for some, included testimony from a forensic examiner who was either unaware or aware of the defendant's confession, and either denied or admitted that it could have impacted his opinion. When the examiner admitted that the confession could have influenced his opinion, laypeople generally discounted his testimony, as evidenced by their verdicts and other ratings. However, when the examiner denied being vulnerable to bias, laypeople tended to believe him—and they weighted his testimony as strongly as that of the confession-unaware examiner. In short, laypeople generally failed to recognize the superiority of forensic science judgments made by context-blind examiners, and they instead trusted examiners who claimed to be impervious to bias. As such, our findings highlight the value of implementing context management procedures in forensic laboratories so as not to mislead fact-finders.     

The presentation of expert testimony via live audio-visual communication

As part of a national effort to improve efficiency in court procedures, the American Bar Association has recommended, on the basis of a number of pilot studies, increased use of current audio-visual technology, such as telephone and live video communication, to eliminate delays caused by unavailability of participants in both civil and criminal procedures. Although these recommendations were made to facilitate court proceedings, and for the convenience of attorneys and judges, they also have the potential to save significant time for clinical expert witnesses as well. The author reviews the studies of telephone testimony that were done by the American Bar Association and other legal research groups, as well as the experience in one state forensic evaluation and treatment center. He also reviewed the case law on the issue of remote testimony. He then presents data from a national survey of state attorneys general concerning the admissibility of testimony via audio-visual means, including video depositions. Finally, he concludes that the option to testify by telephone provides a significant savings in precious clinical time for forensic clinicians in public facilities, and urges that such clinicians work actively to convince courts and/or legislatures in states that do not permit such testimony (currently the majority), to consider accepting it, to improve the effective use of scarce clinical resources in public facilities.     

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。     

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.