允许怀疑:科学证据的新标准

本文阐述了相关的法律判例和科学哲学原理,讨论了法律和科学中对待证据的不同方法,认为现行标准不能满足诉讼证据的目的。最后提出了完善可采性标准的建议,主张走向以相关性作为唯一根据的可采性标准,并辅以针对可靠性问题的陪审团指示,这样有助于事实的审判者得到最准确的结果,会减少那种支持某特定阶层诉讼当事人的偏见,并消除因将科学规范应用于诉讼证据而产生的困惑。     

允许怀疑：科学证据的新标准

本文阐述了相关的法律判例和科学哲学原理,讨论了法律和科学中对待证据的不同方法．认为现行标准不能满足诉讼证据的目的。最后提出了完善可采性标准的建议．主张走向以相关性作为唯一根据的可采性标准,并辅以针对可靠性问题的陪审团指示,这样有助于事实的审判者得到最准确的结果。会减少那种支持某特定阶层诉讼当事人的偏见,并消除因将科学规范应用于诉讼证据而产生的困惑。     

试论如何正确应用DNA证据

拟构建一套正确应用DNA证据的逻辑框架,以避免DNA证据被错误解读和运用,明确法庭科学家和法庭审判者在DNA证据应用中的权责界限,保障事实认定之准确性和司法审判之公正性。提出了以概率统计学为工具,实现从“匹配”到“来源”之逻辑转化的必要性、合理性以及初步构想,并对当下主要的DNA证据解释方法予以分类和评价。     

改良版威格摩尔图示法:一种有效的证据认知分析进路——兼评最高人民法院刑事指导案例第656号CSSCI

证明领域是一个极其重要且十分复杂的领域。长期以来,国内对此领域的研究虽不可谓不多,并且已发展出一套事实认定之"中国模式"对司法实务人员进行指导。然而,该模式却是单薄且含混的,缺乏一套系统且融贯性的基础理论以及实用性范式,难以有效、全面地解决证明领域的疑难问题,最终导致事实认定趋于保守。西方在证明领域的做法值得借鉴。"证据科学"作为一门以推论性推理为核心的具有独立且融贯性的跨学科知识之学科正在西方形成,并发展出了"改良版威格摩尔图示法"这样一种较为实用的证据分析方法,专门用于对复杂案件中混杂证据群进行分析。运用"改良版威格摩尔图示法"对最高人民法院刑事指导案例第656号进行具体剖析,根据该案的已有证据能够对争议性事实形成真实确信;据此,可以看到事实认定之"中国模式"的问题。改良版威格摩尔图示法对我国证据学及实践具有重要的启示意义。     

构建正确应用DNA证据的逻辑框架 兼与宋方明法医等商榷

由于DNA证据的证据形式具有较强的专业性,因此,从DNA证据与被告匹配到被告是证据来源的推导主体必须是法庭科学家,而从被告是证据来源到被告是犯罪实施者的推导主体则必须是法庭审判者。并且正确应用DNA证据的逻辑框架应当是:"先匹配、再来源、后有罪"。只有明晰法庭科学家与法庭审判者间的权责界限,才能正确应用DNA证据,才能准确认定事实,进而实现公正审判。     

中国古代判决的事实依据——以清代为例兼与法定证据的比较

中国古代刑事诉讼中的事实认定依据经历了以证为主到证供一致的转变。司法档案及判牍资料表明,在证供一致模式中,口供与证据皆不可缺少,但证据是定案关键。口供既不独立于证据,也不是证据之王。在民事诉讼中,事实认定始终都以证据为主。法史学界认为中国古代审判比欧陆法定证据制度更重视口供及视口供为证据之王是对中国古代证据立法与实践的误读。     

对言词证据的再思考

对言词证据的再思考王振河本文所指的言词证据，为诉讼中的言词证据。一在国外，对于言词证据有不同的称谓和划分，英国称为“口头证据”，“口头证据是证人证言”。美国称为“意见证据”，“意见证据是证人根据其感知的事实作出的意见或推断性证言，意见证据可以由普通证...     

事实认定的概率分析

根据概率分析所涉及证据数量的不同,事实认定概率分析可分为单一证据维度和证据组合维度。在单一证据维度中,司法鉴定领域会不断涌现像DNA证据那样兼具实证统计数据和高度科学确认度的统计概率证据。在证据组合维度中,事实认定不可能通过数学推理实现,其原因主要有：事实认定过程复杂,数学推理难以模拟;数学推理并非司法证明思维的＂母语＂,而是一门需要翻译的＂外语＂;数学推理会通过＂量＂上的运算模糊、混淆乃至掩盖了＂质＂上的差别。     

间接证据如何认定案件事实——以被告人与犯罪人的同一性认定为中心

在间接证据案件中,事实认定是审判人员以经验法则为指导,运用间接证据推论案件待证事实的主观认知活动,以被告人与犯罪人的同一性认定为核心。这一活动包含两个阶段：一是由间接证据认定间接事实;二是由间接事实推论案件待证事实。在前一阶段中,审判人员应当全面把握间接事实与案件待证事实的逻辑关系,准确区分“不可动摇”的事实、积极的间接事实、中立的间接事实、消极的间接事实,并尽可能以时间、场所、样态的方式做出具体认定。在后一阶段中,审判人员需要对间接证据的证据能力和证明力做出准确评价,并对根据间接事实进行经验推理的过程作出解释和说明。考虑到推论过程的开放性和解释结论的多元性,审判人员应当掌握并使用归谬方法排除不合理的竞合假设,确保事实认定结论是对全部间接证据的最佳解释推论。     

民事诉讼证据能力研究

一证据能力是指某种事实材料能成为诉讼中的证据以认定案件事实的资格和条件，即可被准许或可被采用的能力，“何种的资料可供严格的证明，称此具有可为严格的证明资料之能力为证据能力，或称证据资格，亦即证g适格性。把证g适格即适合于法律的规定，在英美证据法中被称之为证据的容许性或可采性，“某种有形物可作为证据方法的法律上的正当性叫做证据能力。无证据能力的有形物不准作为合法的证据进行调查，即使调查其结果不能作为认定事实的资料。”②对于某种事实资料能否作为证据加以采纳，取决于两方面，一个是它的自然效力，另一个是法…     

Nature and place of crime scene management within forensic sciences

This short paper presents the preliminary results of a recent study aimed at appreciating the relevant parameters required to qualify forensic science as a science through an epistemological analysis. The reader is invited to reflect upon references within a historical and logical framework which assert that forensic science is based upon two fundamental principles (those of Locard and Kirk). The basis of the assertion that forensic science is indeed a science should be appreciated not only on one epistemological criteria (as Popper's falsification raised by the Daubert hearing was), but also on the logical frameworks used by the individuals involved (investigator, expert witness and trier of fact) from the crime scene examination to the final interpretation of the evidence. Hence, it can be argued that the management of the crime scene should be integrated into the scientific way of thinking rather than remain as a technical discipline as recently suggested by Harrison.     

Of earprints, fingerprints, scent dogs, cot deaths and cognitive contamination--a brief look at the present state of play in the forensic arena

Over the last decades, the importance of technical and scientific evidence for the criminal justice system has been steadily increasing. Unfortunately, the weight of forensic evidence is not always easy for the trier of fact to assess, as appears from a brief discussion of some recent cases in which the weight of expert evidence was either grossly over- or understated. Also, in recent years, questions surrounding the value of forensic evidence have played a major role in the appeal and revision stages of a number of highly publicized criminal cases in several countries, including the UK and the Netherlands. Some of the present confusion is caused by the different ways in which conclusions are formulated by experts working within the traditional approach to forensic identification, as exemplified by (1) dactyloscopy and (2) the other traditional forensic identification disciplines like handwriting analysis, firearms analysis and fibre analysis, as opposed to those working within the modern scientific approach used in forensic DNA analysis. Though most clearly expressed in the way conclusions are formulated within the diverse fields, these differences essentially reflect the scientific paradigms underlying the various identification disciplines. The types of conclusions typically formulated by practitioners of the traditional identification disciplines are seen to be directly related to the two major principles underpinning traditional identification science, i.e. the uniqueness assumption and the individualization principle. The latter of these is shown to be particularly problematic, especially when carried to its extreme, as embodied in the positivity doctrine, which is almost universally embraced by the dactyloscopy profession and allows categorical identification only. Apart from issues arising out of the interpretation of otherwise valid expert evidence there is growing concern over the validity and reliability of the expert evidence submitted to courts. While in various countries including the USA, Canada and the Netherlands criteria have been introduced which may be used as a form of input or output control on expert evidence, in England and Wales expert evidence is much less likely to be subject to forms of admissibility or reliability testing. Finally, a number of measures are proposed which may go some way to address some of the present concerns over the evaluation of technical and scientific evidence.     

The Development and Application of Random Match Probabilities to Firearm and Toolmark Identification

The field of firearms and toolmark analysis has encountered deep scrutiny of late, stemming from a handful of voices, primarily in the law and statistical communities. While strong scrutiny is a healthy and necessary part of any scientific endeavor, much of the current criticism leveled at firearm and toolmark analysis is, at best, misinformed and, at worst, punditry. One of the most persistent criticisms stems from the view that as the field lacks quantified random match probability data (or at least a firm statistical model) with which to calculate the probability of a false match, all expert testimony concerning firearm and toolmark identification or source attribution is unreliable and should be ruled inadmissible. However, this critique does not stem from the hard work of actually obtaining data and performing the scientific research required to support or reject current findings in the literature. Although there are sound reasons (described herein) why there is currently no unifying probabilistic model for the comparison of striated and impressed toolmarks as there is in the field of forensic DNA profiling, much statistical research has been, and continues to be, done to aid the criminal justice system. This research has thus far shown that error rate estimates for the field are very low, especially when compared to other forms of judicial error. The first purpose of this paper is to point out the logical fallacies in the arguments of a small group of pundits, who advocate a particular viewpoint but cloak it as fact and research. The second purpose is to give a balanced review of the literature regarding random match probability models and statistical applications that have been carried out in forensic firearm and toolmark analysis.     

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。     

医疗损害鉴定主体改革刍议

医疗损害鉴定主体,包括鉴定机构及鉴定人,是医疗损害鉴定制度改革的起点。医疗事故鉴定模式中的专家组并不是鉴定主体．但其合议制的实质对鉴定结论的科学性具有重要作用,应予保留。应改革鉴定结论形成机制,允许出具多样化的鉴定结论。医疗损害鉴定制度的改革应采取司法行政部门主管、司法鉴定机构组织鉴定工作、医学会推荐鉴定人的模式。由于医学的专业性极强,鉴定人应当来自于现任专职医务人员。在保证鉴定人中立性、公正性的同时,要重视保证医务人员参与鉴定工作的积极性。     

Expert scientific evidence under the adversarial system. A travesty of justice?

The procedures for providing courts with expert scientific evidence under the adversarial and inquisitorial systems are reviewed with special reference to the role of the Home Office as the principal purveyor of such evidence at English law. It is suggested that recent advances in technology must lead to increasing interdependence of the various disciplines involved and that the artificial separations which presently exist, notably between forensic pathology and science, are unsatisfactory. Attention is called to the situation in many European countries where medico-legal institutes provide the courts with comprehensive expert scientific services which are non-confrontational and which do not place experts in the position of appearing for one or other of the parties to an action.     

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.     

法庭科学的表述与法律证明

法庭科学评价意见在法庭上陈述的方式应当与法官所要求、陪审团实际应用的刑事证明程序相兼容。这并非一个数值性的归纳过程,而是在探求排除合理怀疑证明标准下的“最佳解释推理”。面临的问题并不是控方主张的数学概率问题,而是在全面考量了法庭上出示的所有证据后,控方主张是否为唯一可解释假说的问题。为确保陪审团仍然能专注地运用这一法律证明标准,笔者主张,控方提出的评价性法庭科学证据不应当以似然比的形式在强调若控方主张为真便更有可能认定证据,而应聚焦于本方证据对辩方有利的解释范围并在被告被定罪之前排除掉所有这些解释的合理可能性。     

Considering forensic science: individual differences,opposing expert testimony and juror decision making

Two experimental studies examined the effect of opposing expert testimony on perceptions of the reliability of unvalidated forensic evidence (anthropometric facial comparison). In the first study argument skill and epistemological sophistication were included as measures of individual differences, whereas study two included scores on the Forensic Evidence Evaluation Bias Scale. In both studies participants were assigned to groups who heard: (1) no expert testimony, (2) prosecution expert testimony, or (3) prosecution and opposing expert testimony. Opposing expert testimony affected verdict choice, but this effect was mediated by perceptions of reliability of the initial forensic expert's method. There was no evidence for an effect on verdict or reliability ratings by argument skill or epistemology. In the second experiment, the same mediation effect was found, however scores on one subscale from the FEEBS and age also affected both verdict and methodological reliability. It was concluded that opposing expert testimony may inform jurors, but perceptions of the reliability of forensic evidence affect verdict, and age and bias towards forensic science influence perceptions of forensic evidence. Future research should investigate individual differences that may affect perception or bias towards forensic sciences under varying conditions of scientific reliability.