公安院校计算机证据取证教育体系探讨

近年来我国才开始对计算机取证进行相关研究。建立相应的取证实验室,培养计算机取证专业人才,是高等院校特别是公安院校的迫切任务。1.建立计算机证据取证教育体系的建设原则;2.构建多层次的知识结构教育体系;3.静态取证与动态取证并重的教育教学;等。     

交通事故责任认定的证据法学分析

交通事故认定不仅关系到民事赔偿份额,更关系到刑法上罪与非罪的认定,因此具有重要意义。交通事故认定书作为准鉴定结论类证据,在认定程序上存在弊端。因此,应当变革与完善我国的交通事故认定程序,从而确保事故认定结论的权威性。     

电子数据证据问题探析

虽然电子数据的无痕性、易变性、开放性使电子证据极具脆弱性，但根据我国的诉讼模式、证据制度、证据规则、司法实践，以及国际立法的现状、趋势和电子商务等社会实际生活的需要，可以推断出承认电子数据的证据能力不但是可能的，而且是必要的。它的三个本质特征决定了电子证据的证据价值、审查判断的内容方法，都有不同于传统七种证据之处，把它归于视听资料只是权宜之计。     

非法证据排除规则在公安执法中被虚置的成因及对策

非法证据的排除是目前我国理论界和司法实践中普遍关注的热点，尤其是2010年7月1日，最高人民法院、最高人民检察院、公安部、国家安全部、司法部制定的《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的规定》正式施行，标志着我国的非法证据排除规则进入实质性运作阶段。而公安机关是刑事执法的证据收集者，研究非法证据排除规则在公安执法中的适用问题，对推动非法证据排除规则的贯彻实施与在立法上的进一步完善，遏制公安机关的刑事非法取证行为具有十分深远的现实意义。     

英美证据法的程序性解构——以陪审团和对抗制为主线

证据法之谜是英美证据法学界理论发展的重要源动力,也是理解英美证据法制度演进的一条重要线索。对证据法之谜的解释在程序性层面主要有陪审团控制模式和对抗制控制模式两种命题。通过对两个解释性命题的梳理与解析,可以展现出英美证据法的多元程序性要素及其内在运作的机理,从而为我国的证据立法与证据法学研究提供重要的启示。     

规则语境中职务犯罪讯问录音录像的适用问题

讯问职务犯罪嫌疑人全程同步录音录像能够规范侦查讯问行为．保障犯罪嫌疑人的权利。但是实践中讯问录音录像也产生了一些问题，包括笔录与讯问录音录像不一致、讯问录音录像如何展示、讯问录音录像的规范问题等。因此，在现有的证据规则体系下．讯问录音录像制度在实践操作中还有待细化。     

法官澄清义务研究

法官澄清义务以发现客观真实为目的，以法官的积极作为为表现形式。澄清义务由法官对辩方的诉讼关照义务、对控方一定的释明权、法官庭上积极的查证责任，以及庭外调查取证责任组成。在我国现阶段研究澄清义务，有助于体现审判中心主义原则，扭转法官在庭审中不合理的倾向性，提高简易程序事实认定的准确性，保证法官变更诉讼罪名的合理性。未来澄清义务将强调协助性和补充性，淡化义务色彩，成为对被告权利的有力保障。我国法官履行澄清义务应作为检察机关履行证明责任的补充手段，在不改变原证据构造的前提下对存疑证据进行调查核实。法官应积极履行关照义务，特别是基本权利告知义务。辩方申请法官收集对己有利的证据，能够证明证据存在并提供取证线索的，法官应尽量允许。增加法官庭外调查言词证据的手段，强化检察机关和侦查机关配合法官取证的义务。     

Dueling experts and imperfect verification

In the Dueling Experts Game, adversarial experts strategically produce “good” or “bad” evidence to support their partisan testimony. Good evidence is probative while bad evidence has no evidentiary value. The new feature of this Game is that Judge sometimes erroneously identifies good evidence as bad evidence and vice versa. Along the Game’s equilibrium path, each partisan expert produces only good evidence if it supports his side. When favorable good evidence is unavailable, an expert produces bad evidence to support his testimony. Hence, dueling experts always contradict one another. Despite their conflicting testimony, one of the experts invariably produces the available good evidence for Judge. Therefore, Judge always receives the available good evidence. A central result is that the quality of experts, including their ability to persuade judges using available good evidence, and the quality of judges – their ability to distinguish good from bad evidence – determine the accuracy of verdicts. Remarkably, the likelihood that experts are endowed with good evidence does not matter provided that this likelihood is not identically zero or one.     

Covert communication by means of email spam: A challenge for digital investigation

In digital investigations the investigator typically has to deal with thousands of digital artifacts. Among them, email has long been one of the many focuses that potentially can generate useful information. However, in our training we notice a tendency to overlook or downplay the importance of analyzing spam emails as they are generally assumed to be irrelevant junk emails. In this article we thus illustrate how these seemingly irrelevant messages might play a crucial role in digital investigations. Five scenarios are introduced in which the investigator tends to overlook crucial incriminating information that has been disguised as spam. The methods used by criminals in these cases are discussed. In light of these covert criminal communications, we call for more attention from the digital forensics community to realize how email spam may assist in criminal activities.     

关于证据科学的思考

本文探讨了证据科学的要素。本文认为,证据科学必须是多学科的,或者整合性的。如果我们分享彼此基于证据的推理方面的思想和经验,我们都会受益于稳固确立的证据科学。