从过去30年美国使用专家证言的法律经历中应吸取的教训

本文探讨了Frye标准,并将Frye案与Daubert案进行了比较,认为大多数遵行Daubert案的司法辖区,法院已经选择终结对传统科学、软科学和非科学专门知识免于审查的做法。在许多遵行Daubert案的司法辖区,法院开始认识到,基于硬科学技术的专家证言的可采性问题仅仅是冰山之一角。从过去30年美国使用专家证言的法律经验中应汲取的教训是,仅仅狭隘地关注硬科学证言是一个重大的错误。     

从过去30年美国使用专家证言的法律经历中应吸取的教训

本文探讨了Frye标准,并将Frye案与Daubert案进行了比较,认为大多数遵行Daubert案的司法辖区,法院已经选择终结对传统科学、软科学和非科学专门知识免于审查的做法.在许多遵行Daubert案的司法辖区,法院开始认识到,基于硬科学技术的专家证言的可采性问题仅仅是冰山之一角.从过去30年美国使用专家证言的法律经验中应汲取的教训是,仅仅狭隘地关注硬科学证言是一个重大的错误.     

从过去30年美国使用专家证言的法律经历中应吸取的教训

本文探讨了Frye标准,并将Frye案与Daubert案进行了比较,认为大多数遵行Daubert案的司法辖区,法院已经选择终结对传统科学、软科学和非科学专门知识免于审查的做法.在许多遵行Daubert案的司法辖区,法院开始认识到,基于硬科学技术的专家证言的可采性问题仅仅是冰山之一角.从过去30年美国使用专家证言的法律经验中应汲取的教训是,仅仅狭隘地关注硬科学证言是一个重大的错误.     

从过去30年美国使用专家证言的法律经历中应吸取的教训

本文探讨了Frye标准,并将Frye案与Daubert案进行了比较,认为大多数遵行Daubert案的司法辖区,法院已经选择终结对传统科学、软科学和非科学专门知识免于审查的做法.在许多遵行Daubert案的司法辖区,法院开始认识到,基于硬科学技术的专家证言的可采性问题仅仅是冰山之一角.从过去30年美国使用专家证言的法律经验中应汲取的教训是,仅仅狭隘地关注硬科学证言是一个重大的错误.     

试论民事诉讼中证人的证言拒绝权

一、证言拒绝权概述证言拒绝权是指基于民事诉讼法律的规定,负有作证义务的证人在被法院要求提供证言时,得对此加以拒绝的公法上的抗辩权。目前,世界上多数法治国家,在民诉法中规定了证人的“证言拒绝权”,以期确保在发现案件真实与保障证人权利间求得平衡。在大陆法系国家,其多体现为成文法形式。在英美法系国家,类似证言拒绝权的是普通法诉讼中的作证拒绝特权。比较而言,实行陪审制度的英美法系因为更多地依赖于直接从证人处获取的证据来判断事实真伪,对证人证言自     

论我国涉外审判中“专家意见”制度的完善

通过不同途径提交的外国法专家意见在诉讼中的性质和地位不同,当事人主动提供的外国法专家意见属于专家证言,在诉讼中应当适用有关专家证言的规定。法院指定专家出具的有关外国法的意见类似司法鉴定结论,可以比照适用司法鉴定结论的有关规定。在法院指定的情形下,专家应当接受法院委托,提交书面的法律意见,并出庭接受询问,但该法律意见对法庭没有绝对的拘束力。外国法专家有获取报酬的权利,对故意或者过失造成的损失承担侵权责任。     

论我国刑事证人出庭作证制度的立法完善

一 证人证言是世界各国刑事诉讼中运用最为普遍的一种证据，在我国刑事证据体系中也居于十分重要的地位。而证人出庭作证是充分发挥证人证言这种证据作用的关键环节。所以，证人出庭作证已成为各国刑事诉讼法普遍确立的制度，也是当今刑事审判制度发展的必然趋势。在我国刑事诉讼中，证人出庭作证对于法院查实案情，保护当事人的合法权益，推进刑事诉讼的民主化、公开化和完善整个刑事诉讼制度，都具有重大的现实意义。 １、证人出庭作证能使我国新的刑事审判方式得到有效实施 修改后的《刑事诉讼法》对我国刑事审判方式作了重大改革，将原…     

论建立与完善刑事证人证言规则的价值需求

证人证言是《刑事诉讼法》规定的法定证据种类之一 ,也是司法实践中运用最普遍、存在问题最多的证据之一。正确运用证人证言对实现刑事诉讼价值有不可忽视的作用。文章分析了刑事诉讼价值及建立证人证言规则对实现刑事诉讼价值的重要作用 ,并从现行我国证人证言的立法与司法状况中 ,揭示出其与刑事诉讼价值的冲突 ,表明建立和完善证人证言规则对实现刑事诉讼价值的必要性。     

指令再审刑事抗诉案件质疑

对检察机关按再审程序提出抗诉的案件，接受抗诉的法院能否指令下级法院再审，刑事诉讼法等有关法律均未予以明确。法学界和司法实践中普遍就此持肯定意见。对此，笔者不敢苟同，仅就其弊端及其成因谈以下拙见。指令再审刑事抗诉案件的弊端首先，对抗诉案件指令再审有悻法律的规定。按照刑事诉讼法第149条第2款和人民法院组织法关于各级法院职权的规定，p有当下级法院生效裁判的错误是由最高法院或上级法院发现的时候，才发生指令下级法院再审的问题，而对上级检察机关因发现下级法院生效裁判确有错误而向法院提出的再审抗诉，法律并没有允…     

莫让青春背上十字架

一个人犯下不可饶恕的错误，就是坏人吗？这期“当事日记”中的徐福黄，给了我否定的答案。看到徐福黄手写的十多页自述，密密麻麻记录着他杀死前女友后10年的人生，不禁让人嗟叹：如果，他年少轻狂时那个鲜血淋淋的错误，这应该是一个典型的穷小子的奋斗史、拼搏经，也许再一个10年后，一个叱咤商海的成功企业家，在接受媒体访谈的时候，侃侃描述着自己创业的艰辛。如果没有他会成为     

专家辅助人管理模式研究

专家辅助人出庭质证制度正在悄悄改变现有的诉讼格局。通过专家出庭质证,改变了法庭对鉴定意见盲从的现状;但对专家辅助人监管的缺失使法律界人士担忧,其不仅违背法律对诉讼参与人应当监管的原则,也为该制度的正常适用埋下隐患。通过对专家辅助人是否应当管理、如何管理和怎样管理进行理论上的探讨,提出了当前阶段只适宜采用审判管理的建议。     

Ten years in the life of an expert witness

American Courts are experiencing increased use of expert testimony based upon psychological research. Ten years ago, I began testifying about my own research on human perception, recollection, and eyewitness accounts. The growing acceptance of this testimony percipitated a backlash from some psychologists. This essay describes the chronology of these events, and their relevance for the more general use of psychological research as evidence in court.     

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.     

Kumho, Daubert, and the nature of scientific inquiry: implications for forensic anthropology

In the last 15 years, the US Supreme Court has implemented major changes concerning the admittance of expert testimony. In 1993, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals superseded the Frye ruling in federal courts and established judges, not the scientific community, as the gatekeepers regarding the credibility of scientific evidence. In 1999, a lesser-known but equally important decision, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, ruled that technical expert testimony needed to employ the same rigor as outlined in Daubert, but experts can develop theories based on observations and apply such theories to the case before the court. Anthropology has never been defined as a hard science. Yet, many recent publications have modified existing techniques to meet the Daubert criteria, while none have discussed the significance of Kumho to anthropological testimony. This paper examines the impact of Daubert and Kumho on forensic anthropology and illustrates areas of anthropological testimony best admitted under Kumho's guidance.     

鉴定人出庭作证制度实施现状及完善——以浙江省为视角

新的《民事诉讼法》和《刑事诉讼法》对鉴定人出庭制度作了细致改进,同时明确了鉴定人的出庭义务和法律责任.但在实践中,鉴定人出庭制度的运行状况不甚理想.据浙江省司法厅统计,2013年该省办理涉及诉讼的司法鉴定36 832件,但鉴定人出庭作证只有167次,出庭率仅为0.45％.新的诉讼法对于促进鉴定人出庭的努力收效甚微.结合该省工作实践,运用实证调研的方法,探究鉴定人出庭制度实施的现状和鉴定人出庭率低的原因,提出完善该制度的建议.     

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。     

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.     

Chapter 2: The Legal Position and Organizational Forms of Forensic Psychiatric Expert Examination

The practical task of forensic psychiatry, which is one of the subdivisions of psychiatry, is to give an expert evaluation, on assignment from investigatory agencies and courts, and to devise and recommend measures for the prevention of socially dangerous acts by the mentally ill. Forensic psychiatric expert examination, like forensic medical, criminal, or any other type of expert examination, aids agencies of justice in establishing the facts in a case. Forensic psychiatric expert examination is called upon to assist the investigator and the court in determining whether an individual is a criminal or a legally irresponsible, mentally ill person; whether a person sentenced to a prison term should, because of mental illness, be released before his time is served; whether the investigator and the court may pursue the interrogation of a witness or victim with mental disorders, and whether the testimony of such persons may be used as court evidence. Such an expert examination is necessary in a civil suit in deciding the question of an individual's competence.     

Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System*

Abstract. While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a dialectical context as a set of critical questions of the kind commonly used in models of argumentation.     

刑事诉讼专家辅助人出庭的观点争议及其解决思路

我国2012年修改的《刑事诉讼法》和《民事诉讼法》对“有专门知识的人”的规定相当简略,尤其是其出庭“适用鉴定人的有关规定”表述．不仅存在“有专门知识的人”是作为专家证人还是专家辅助人之争论．而且还引发是否有必要界定为中立的鉴定人诉讼地位之分歧。基于此．“有专门知识的人”参与法庭是否需要准入限制、法庭如何行使审查权限以及是否适用回避制度、其权利义务如何确定、如何在法庭上进行质证、其质证的效力如何以及在法庭上应安排何种位置等问题需要理论予以澄清．而理论需要结合我国司法制度与诉讼制度的要求及其功能作出具有规范意义的诠释．