Preparing children for cross-examination: do the practice questions matter?

Research has shown that a brief intervention involving practice and feedback can help children maintain accuracy when challenged with cross-examination-style questions. To date, however, researchers have prepared children using the same cross-examination challenges that they would encounter during the subsequent cross-examination interview. It is unknown whether the intervention will still be effective when children later face novel cross-examination-style questions. Six- to 11-year-old children (n?=?132) took part in a staged memory event, and were then interviewed with analogues of direct-examination (1–2 days later) and cross-examination (6–8 weeks later). One week prior to the cross-examination interview, some children participated in a preparation session, where they were given practice answering cross-examination-style questions about an unrelated topic, and feedback on their responses. For half of these children, the cross-examination-style challenges they encountered during the preparation session were the same as the challenges they subsequently faced during cross-examination; for the others, there was no overlap. Relative to a control group that did not receive the intervention, the preparation session resulted in better performance during cross-examination, regardless of the degree of overlap. These findings are encouraging given that we can never predict the questions that cross-examining lawyers will ask children.     

The Direct and Cross-Examination of Complainants and Defendants in Rape Trials: A Quantitative Analysis of Question Type

This paper is a post-hoc examination of the questioning used in six rape trials. Questions asked in the evidence-in-chief and cross-examination of six complainants and five defendants were coded into different categories. The categories comprised "open", "closed", "leading", "heavily-leading" and "yes/no" questions; questions that are known to increasingly constrain witness responses. Additionally, the frequency of "multiple questions", and questions with "negatives" and "double negatives" were recorded; questions that witnesses have difficulty understanding. Broadly speaking, results showed that questions in both evidence-in-chief and cross-examination were of a constraining nature and allowed witnesses little opportunity to provide complete accounts of alleged events, particularly during cross-examination. Multiple questions were frequent although negatives were comparatively rare, and double negatives did not occur. Similar forms of questioning were used for complainants as for defendants, although more questions were asked of complainants than defendants in cross-examination. The results are discussed in terms of the adverse influence of these questioning strategies on the completeness and accuracy of witnesses' responses, and the similarity in "combativeness" of lawyers in their examination of complainants and defendants.     

司法鉴定行政与司法视角的边界——民诉证据司法解释鉴定内容的思考

2019年12月26日,最高人民法院发布了《关于修改〈关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定〉的决定》,备受司法界关注。其中,涉及司法鉴定的条款达24条之多,笔者结合《司法鉴定程序通则》,对相关内容予以了梳理与比较,揭示了民事证据规定给司法鉴定带来的变化与问题。民事证据规定重点规制了司法鉴定启动、受理、鉴定人出庭接受质询、鉴定人诚信承诺、鉴定人权利保障,鉴定人的出庭义务、遵守鉴定时限的义务,以及围绕鉴定资料的真实性、合法性方面的规定,以期保障鉴定质量。与此同时,民事证据规定也带来了管理上的边界之争的问题,包括司法鉴定行政管理部门与法院之间、法院与司法鉴定机构之间,以及法官与鉴定人之间权利义务的边界之争与之推,司法鉴定呈现多头管理已见端倪。本研究直面司法鉴定发展中的问题,建议尽早启动司法鉴定立法工作,强化鉴定意见的法庭质证,明确虚假鉴定的认定标准,梳理鉴定多头管理乱象等等,希望可以对司法鉴定制度的改革有所裨益。     

欧洲人权法院视野下的质证权保障与证人保护

刑事审判中被告人享有质证权,应予以保障.然而在某些特殊情况下,为了保障证人的权利不得不采取一定措施对被告人的质证权进行适当的限制,二者存在此消彼长的矛盾关系.欧洲人权法院采取对被告人质证权的限制理由正当化与较佳防御手段优先适用的原则,以实现二者的平衡.欧洲人权法院的做法具有科学合理之处,值得我们学习和借鉴.     

浅析医疗纠纷案件久拖不决的原因及对策建议

随着我国依法治国方略的不断践行，法制宣传教育的不断深入，公民的法律意识、维权意识在不断提高，医疗纠纷案件也逐年增加。影响案件解决的因素复杂、多样，本文主要从调解解决、司法鉴定环节、法院诉讼几个阶段分析造成医疗纠纷案件久拖不决的原因以及提出相应的对策建议。     

美国专家证人制度的评价及启示

作为证据之一的鉴定结论对于诉讼中涉及到专门性问题的认定至关重要,而鉴定人制度又是其核心内容。本文首先介绍了美国专家证人的资格、委任和出庭作证;接着就其合理内涵与制度缺陷及其补救措施进行了详细的分析;最后,在结合我国的现状与借鉴美国的有益作法的基础上,提出了建议。     

我国庭审过程中交叉询问制度的不足与完善

近些年来,国内学者们一直在探寻着我国《刑事诉讼法》的修改方案,因为我国属于大陆法系,以成文法为主导,所以庭审过程中的交叉询问制度、质证认证制度等规则相对于英美法系国家就显得不健全。可以在探究我国庭审过程中的举证、质证、认证规则不足的同时,将我国的《刑事诉讼法》与美国的《诉讼法》相比较,以寻求完善我国《刑事诉讼法》的办法。     

突破与局限：特殊侦查措施所获证据材料适用研究-以《关于办理死刑案件审查判断证据若干问题的规定》第35条为中心

如何理解特殊侦查措施，学界存在多种不同的观点。将特殊侦查措施视为秘密侦查的等同物，是符合《办理死刑案件证据规定》第35条立法精神与宗旨的理解。特殊侦查措施所获证据材料长期以来在我国不具备证据能力．必须经“转化”以后才能使用，由此导致诸多执法困境。《办理死刑案件证据规定》第35条虽然力图突破这一长期困扰审判实务的难题．但...