专家证言的概念性挑战

本文重点考察了专家知识与案件审理模式之间的关系。总体而言,案件审理是一种教育性活动,其间,事实认定者应能够理解、处理和思考证据,并得出理性的结论。这一过程反映了审理中准确事实认定的根本重要性,若没有准确的事实认定,权利和义务便是空谈。专家证据通常涉及一种遵从性而非教育性的诉讼程序模式,从这一点上来说其有悖于常规的审判理想状态。本文讨论了这一发展过程、其形成原因及其后果。若要实现审判的理想状态,那么替代性措施(即所有证据应以教育性模式呈现)则更为优越。如果证据无法以此种方式(教育性模式)呈现,那么在审理过程中通过证据所展现的待证事项便无法与常规的审判理想状态保持一致。     

英美证据法上的专家证言制度及其面临的挑战

专家证言是英美法系证据法上意见法则的一项例外,但是,不论是普通法还是联邦证据规则对于专家证言都规定了限制条件。本文指出这些限制在专家领域和常识领域的区别,介绍了专家意见法则的界限标准以及所具备的知识和资格要求。讨论了专家意见的形成所依赖的基础以及专家是否可以在最终事实问题上发表意见。英美的专家证言制度也面临着反思与挑战,但是,除非以当事人主义为核心特征的对抗式诉讼有根本的改变,否则,英美证据法中专家证言制度所面临的困境不会获得更为有效的解决。     

美国专家证言制度解读

专业人士的协助伴随着文明的进步而变得日趋重要,专家证言制度便是这种背景作用于司法领域的产物.通过界分专家领域与常识领域的界限,以及确立必要的资格标准,此种制度在英美证据法上所发挥的作用是毋庸置疑的.     

美国专家证言制度解读

专业人士的协助伴随着文明的进步而变得日趋重要，专家证言制度便是这种背景作用于司法领域的产物。通过界分专家领域与常识领域的界限，以及确立必要的资格标准，此种制度在英美证据法上所发挥的作用是毋庸置疑的。     

新科学证据带来的挑战——评估专家证言的司法责任

前言 一直以来,司法系统充斥着解决日益复杂且带有技术性的事实问题的专家证言,有关专家证言可采性的规制主体和考察因素问题的诸多规则,已经引发了诸多的争议和广泛的分歧。理论上,专家证言阐述案件事实并帮助陪审团评估那些超出其知识和经验的证据。然而,陪审团经常缺乏任何可靠或一致的基础来评估专家证人证言的可信度。雇用专家(expert-for-hire)的增加以及陪审团误解专家证言     

鉴定结论与专家证言之初步比较

鉴定结论与专家证言是分别为大陆法系和英美法系国家所使用的概念。本文试通过比较这两个概念,分析其共同点和差别,来认识其实质,并为我国立法和司法实践提供借鉴。通过比较,本文认为:一、我国应扩大鉴定的范围,并允许专业性意见进入到诉讼当中;二、我国应通过法律程序保证鉴定人及其他专业人员具有相应的资格;三、我国应赋予鉴定人及其他专业人员类似于证人的权利和义务,实现鉴定人和其他专业人员的证人化。     

论诉讼制度、理念和原则对专家证言制度的影响——以美国与法国专家证言制度之比较研究为视角

普通法系和大陆法系的诉讼制度中都有专家证言制度,用以解决诉讼中认定案件事实时所遇到的专业技术问题。虽然两种专家证言制度有着共同的目的,但是在具体规则上却有诸多不同。本文拟对普通法系和大陆法系的两个典型代表——美国与法国在民事诉讼中的专家证言制度作一比较,并探讨两者的差别背后所反映的两大法系在诉讼制度、原则和理念方面对专家证言制度的影响及其对中国的启示。     

专家机器人:利用人工智能协助法官采纳科学性专家证言

一、前言你是否被文章题目震撼了呢?如果是这样,那么也别担心.因为科技怀疑主义由来已久.柏拉图在2370年前就曾在科技对人类关系的影响上感到过焦虑.1在《对话篇:菲德洛斯》篇中,苏格拉底与菲德洛斯就有这样一段对话,苏格拉底说:在这样一个情境下,你是文字之父,来自父亲对自己孩子的爱是一个他们所不能拥有的品质;因为你的发现会在学习者的灵魂中产生遗忘,因为他们不会使用自己的记忆;他们相信外在的形式符号而不记得自己.你所发现的特征不是帮助记忆的,而是帮助回忆的.     

论科学证据、专家证言、鉴定意见三者的关系

与科学证据有关的法律概念主要有大陆法的鉴定意见,以及英美法国家的专家证言。鉴定意见与专家证言之间,由于具有不同的证据法原理,不具有可比性。在英美法国家,科学证据应是专家证言的下位概念;在大陆法国家,科学证据与鉴定意见之间的关系,与鉴定的法律定位密切相关,要具体国家具体分析。明确这一点,有利于厘清我国科学证据的相关法律定位及其与鉴定意见之间的关系。     

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.     

The quality of written expert testimony in alleged child sexual abuse: An empirical study

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to empirically evaluate written expert testimonies in cases of suspected child sexual abuse in Sweden. A total of 121 expert testimonies were rated with an instrument developed for the study, the SQX-12 (Gumpert et al., 2001) which is a 12-item checklist aimed to reflect consensus-established concepts of quality. Reports from different professional groups were compared, as were reports produced before and after the 1991 publication of national guidelines. The results suggested that the reports produced by professionals using statement analysis generally were of higher quality than reports written by professionals from child- and adolescent psychiatry. There was a slight increase in report quality, as measured by the SQX total score, over the studied years. However, it is concluded that the overall quality of written expert testimony on child credibility still does not reach the recommended level in Sweden.     

河南省刑事案件司法精神病学鉴定案例的随访研究

目的研究司法精神病学鉴定后各方对结论及处理的看法及社会影响等随访因素。方法作者通过通信函调、电话随访和登门拜访等三种方法,用自编调查表对208例鉴定案例分别向委托机关、被鉴定人本人或家属、受害人本人或家属进行随访。结果被鉴定人受教育年限平均为4.84年,以30岁左右已婚男性农民居多。暴力犯罪(129例占83.77%)远较非暴力犯罪(25例占16.23%)为多,前者又尤以杀人(44例占28.57%)为最常见。本资料再鉴定率为2.93%。被鉴定人及其家属对34例无责任能力的处理意见认为恰当的占76.47%,对判为无罪释放的28例,认为处理恰当的占71.43%,认为不恰当的占10.7%。对就医者几乎全都满意,对判刑或关押的认为恰当与不恰当者各占43.18%。受害人目前现状为死亡7例,残废10例,恢复健康10例。被鉴定人及其家属的意见与司法机关认为案件引起的社会影响似乎无关。被司法机关无罪释放的41例(26.62%)被鉴定人中,再杀人2例(4.87%),放火2例(4.87%),盗窃2例(4.87%),回归社会后有破坏行为但尚未构成犯罪者3例(7.31%)。结论建议政府有关部门尽快建立违法犯罪精神病人的监管和医疗机构。     

Communicating forensic scientific expertise: An analysis of expert reports and corresponding testimony in Tasmanian courts

Forensic criminology examines the use of forensic science in society. Justice can be hampered, for example, if the communication of forensic scientific findings is unclear or misleading, even if unintentionally. Although various recommendations guide the communication of forensic science, it is unclear whether they are reflected in practice. This study explored the communication of forensic biology in 10 cases of major crimes against the person heard in the Tasmanian Supreme Court, where the standard practice is to issue brief summary reports in the first instance. The content of expert reports and corresponding testimony was analysed to determine its adherence to recommendations outlined in standards, practice notes, and research. While reports were found to be very brief, testimony elaborated on all major elements. Mostly elicited by the prosecution, some elements were volunteered by expert witnesses, or raised by defence. Overall, expert evidence in courts—but not reports (due to the use of brief summary reports)—largely adhered to recommendations. Further research is needed to determine the prevalence and effectiveness of alternative approaches to communication that were identified in certain cases.     

Perceptions of coercion in interrogation: comparing expert and lay opinions

ABSTRACT

When confessions are entered into evidence in criminal courts, issues of coercion and voluntariness are important and often contested matters. Occasionally, defense attorneys proffer expert witnesses to testify about the coercive pressures of an interrogation and the risk of a false confession. Such testimony is often ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it does not inform the jury beyond its common knowledge. In our effort to test this judicial assumption about common knowledge, we surveyed jury-eligible laypeople (n?=?67) and social scientists specializing in interrogation and confessions (n?=?54) regarding their opinions about the coerciveness of prohibited interrogation tactics, maximization techniques, minimization techniques, and suspect risk factors and compared their ratings with a set of independent t tests. Laypeople gave lower ratings to the coerciveness of all sets of items representing interrogation techniques, and lower ratings to the vulnerabilities associated with suspect risk factors, as compared to social science experts. The disparities between laypeople’s and experts’ perceptions of coercion in interrogations demonstrate that such issues are not fully within the common knowledge of prospective jurors, and suggest the need to provide jurors with expert witness guidance when tasked with evaluating confession evidence.     

Development of an instrument for assessing the quality of forensic evidence and expert testimony from three feature-comparison methods: DNA,voice, and fingerprint analysis

In a context of rising violence and long-lasting impunity, in 2008, Mexico's criminal justice system underwent a radical change from an inquisitorial model to an adversarial one, to make it more effective, transparent, and expeditious. The new system tasked judges with publicly determining the admissibility of forensic evidence, as well as assessing its technical quality and probative value—tasks for which they currently receive little to no training. With the aim of contributing to the consolidation of the adversarial model, a comparative framework—in the form of a checklist—of the analysis of fingerprints, DNA samples, and voice recordings was created. To do so, a review of the academic literature, published reports, and guidelines was performed. The collected data were synthesized and submitted to a panel of Mexican judges, who provided feedback on its adequacy. The framework focuses on the steps on which quality assurance of forensic evidence depends, organized in five discrete stages that span from the collection of samples at the scene of a crime to the presentation of evidence at trial, specifying the main technical criteria experts should state to allow a decision maker to examine its accuracy and reliability. Differences and commonalities among the three methods were identified, particularly in terms of how qualitative and quantitative analyses are performed in each. Besides its potential usefulness as an aid for judicial decision-making, the checklist could be a valuable resource for training programs aimed at judges, as well as quality assurance programs.     

精神病人合同能力鉴定的相关问题

为了探讨精神病人合同能力鉴定的相关理论 ,解决合同能力鉴定中鉴定标准混乱的问题 ,对合同能力鉴定的法律基础、标准、民事行为能力与民事权利能力的区别 ,民事行为能力的广义、狭义区分进行了论述。提出合同能力鉴定的核心问题是意思表示的真实性 ,主张将合同能力分为有、无两级 ,强调合同能力的分级与民事行为能力的等级存在区别。并提出合同能力鉴定的程式为 :首先判定其行为能力 ,有行为能力相应具有合同能力 ,无行为能力即无合同能力 ,限制民事行为者 ,应根据年龄、智力、精神健康状况、生活关联度 ,再分为有合同能力、无合同能力。     

论司法鉴定人资格

司法鉴定人制度是司法鉴定制度的核心,而明确司法鉴定人资格是完善司法鉴定人制度的前提。在对司法鉴定人的资质控制上我国一度处在规定不明,审查不清,制度混乱的状态,这也是导致许多案件所依据的鉴定结论反复出现矛盾的原因之一。通过比较国外相关制度,梳理我国现有制度的弊端,本文提出了完善我国司法鉴定人资格的若干建议。