诉讼法视野中的法医DNA证据研究

作为一种科学证据,法医DNA证据在凶杀、性犯罪等案件的审判中被广泛运用。但是该证据能否最终被法庭采纳,取决于其提取、保管、送检以及鉴定过程中是否受到一系列严格的诉讼程序加以规范,并经过庭审的质证,从而最终通过法庭的审查判断。而庭审质证能否有效进行,又与警察、鉴定人出庭作证以及交叉询问制度的真正确立息息相关。     

质证若干问题探讨

质证原则是我国《刑事诉讼法》确定的一项重要的庭审原则,是庭审方式改革后我国庭审的内在要求和必然结果。呈庭证据必须经过法庭质证后,才能被确认并采信,才能作为定案的依据。因此,质证原则是我国刑事诉讼的一项基础性原则。     

论刑事庭审质证存在的问题

法庭调查与法庭辩论是庭审过程中最关键、最具对抗性的环节。随着"证据裁判"的观念不断深入人心,法庭调查阶段的举证、质证也越来越受到人们的重视。我国刑事庭审质证经历了从无到有,从被忽视到被重视的过程,逐步走向规范、高效的道路。然而,实践中仍存在问题。     

刑事诉讼质证制度的完善

我国1996年修订的刑事诉讼法以控辩式的诉讼模式为取向对庭审方式进行了重大改革,在这种庭审方式中,控辩双方的当庭举证、质证成为庭审活动的基础。然而,在刑事司法实践中由于种种原因,使得当庭质证流于形式,效果很差。本文拟就质证制度的相关问题作一些探讨。 所谓刑事诉讼中的质证,是指在法庭审理过程中,控辩双方互相对对方提出的证据进行质疑、辩驳,     

行政诉讼证据的质证

行政诉讼当事人将证据提交法庭之后,对证据可采性与证明力的确认便成为一个问题,这一工作通过质证来完成。做好庭审质证工作,关系案件事实的确认,影响案件的裁判,关涉当事人权益的维护。为此,《规定》第四部分对证据的质证作出了专门规定,为行政审判人员组织庭审质证活动提供了依据。 一、质证的基本原则 质证的基本原则是直接言词原则,该原则是直接     

民事庭审质证的基本要素研究

民事庭审质证是质证双方在法庭主持下就证据的证明力和可采性进行相互辩驳的诉讼行为,其基本要素包括质证主体、质证客体、质证内容和质证方式四个方面。质证主体应是证据或其形成过程的认识者、质证意思的独立表示者、质证程序的参与者、质证行为的实施者、与质证相关的程序性权利的享有者或程序性义务的承担者,其不但包括当事人,而且包括广义上的证人。质证客体的范围应限于“当事人提出质疑的证据”,过宽或过窄均不利于兼顾司法公正的实现和诉讼效率的提升。质证内容应限于证据的真实性、关联性和合法性三个方面,证据的客观性缺乏质证意义,充分性只有在证据链中才有质证意义。质证方式亦即质证的行为方式,其有别于质证的基础性工作,是质证双方针对证据的证明力及其可采性展开的法庭论辩。     

浅析法庭调查阶段证据质证中的质辩

法庭质证是指在审判长主持下，参加庭审的各方对所出示的证据的真实性、客观性、有效性、排他性进行质疑、质辩的过程。目前的法庭审判中，对法庭审理的证据质证往往停留于证据质疑阶段，审判长在双方出示证据后征询双方对证据的疑问，而在双方对对方出示的证据有疑问的是否需要展开辩论，一般是不予许可的，而让双方就证据辩论内容留于法庭辩论阶段进行，笔者认为，上述取消或不重视证据质辩以及将证据质辩与法庭辩论阶段混为一谈的作法是不妥的，值得商榷。一、证据质辩是法庭审理的一个重要阶段，不容忽视修订后的（刑事诉讼法》第160条…     

浅谈利用举证说明和证据评述支持公诉主张

支持公诉主张,实现公诉目的,要依靠证据。证据必须经过查证属实,才能作为定案的根据。证据的“查证”过程,就是庭审中讯问、举证、示证、质证、辩论的过程。在这一过程中,公诉人拟向法庭列举的证据并非局限于《刑诉法》第150条规定的“主要证据”,还有其他证据,而这些“其他证据”因未向法庭移送,审判人员在庭审前并不知悉。因此,公诉人在举证时应当对主要证据扣其他拟     

民事庭审中质证方法的运用

随着我国民事审判方式改革的进一步深化，庭审质证的重要性已日益显现出来。所谓质证是指民事审判活动中，在人民法院的主持下，诉讼双方当事人就庭审出示的各种证据材料进行的查验、质询、分析、辩证，从而证明其作用的一种诉讼活动。其主要目的就是为了证明某一证据材料是否真实。合法、有效，能否作为证明己方观点的证据使用。因此，科学地掌握多种质证方法和技巧，已成为胜诉不可缺少的因素。庭审质证的方法虽然因案而异，因人而异，但归纳起来，可以采用如下几种方法进行。一、审验审验是对对方出示的证据所进行的审核验证。庭审过程中…     

当庭举证、质证探略

刑事诉讼法规定了“谁主张，谁举证”的庭审活动原则，突出了控辩双方的诉讼主体地位，明确了公诉人的举证责任。公诉人能否在庭审中进行有力的举证和有效的质证，不仅关系到公诉机关的形象，而且还关系到能否对被告人科处刑罚，关系到公诉的最终成败。因此，探讨公诉人进行当庭举证和质证的一般规律，很有必要。一、公诉人如何当庭举证当庭举证，即公诉人就指控被告人的犯罪事实的情节，当庭出示和展示证据。它是追究被告人刑事责任的前提和基础。公诉人在庭审举证时，要求举证既要有力又要充分，紧紧围绕犯罪构成要件把证据举到位。”（一…     

DNA鉴定人出庭作证现状、问题及对策

DNA鉴定在刑事案件的侦查中能锁定犯罪嫌疑人、串并案件、提供侦查线索,是重要的技术破案手段.DNA证据通常是可靠的,被大多数人认可,以前DNA鉴定人出庭作证非常少见.但是,DNA证据也并非完美,在应用中常常会出现一些问题,还有个别DNA检验出错,因而法庭必须加强对DNA证据的审查.随着我国新刑诉法的出台,DNA鉴定人出庭作证将是今后日常工作之一,通过质证,排除非法证据,准确阐释证据的证明力,最终实现刑事诉讼的实体公正和程序公正.本文亦针对在探索阶段鉴定人出庭作证存在的问题给予了一些建议.     

论司法鉴定人出庭作证

鉴定人在诉讼中起着重要的作用，鉴定结论必须经过审查、质证后才能在庭审中加以运用，鉴定人出庭作证也是必要的，然而，由于种种因素的影响和制约，当前我国司法实践中鉴定人出庭甚少，相关制度应当加以完善，以提高鉴定人的出庭率。     

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.     

非法证据排除程序再讨论

对于被告方提出的排除非法证据的申请,法院要进行专门的程序性裁判。作为一项基本原则,被告方一旦提出排除非法证据的申请,法院就要优先审查侦查行为的合法性问题,使程序性裁判具有优先于实体性裁判的效力。作为程序性裁判的两个重要部分,初步审查要求被告方承担初步的证明责任,具有过滤不必要的程序性裁判的功能;正式调查作为法院的程序性听证程序,具备基本的诉讼构造,偏重于职权主义的诉讼模式,并由公诉方承担证明侦查行为合法性的责任,且要达到最高的证明标准。对于一审法院就非法证据排除问题所作的决定,二审法院无法提供独立的司法救济,只能将其与实体问题一并作为是否撤销原判的依据。     

The Impact of the Registered Intermediary on Adults’ Perceptions of Child Witnesses: Evidence from a Mock Cross Examination

Registered intermediaries are communication specialists appointed to facilitate the communication of vulnerable witnesses participating in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. Intermediaries assess the vulnerable individual’s communication and provide recommendations to practitioners for how to obtain the individual’s ‘best evidence’ during police interviews and in court. The scheme was implemented nationally in 2008, but has not been subject to rigorous research. The aim of the current article is to provide an account on adults’ perceptions of the vulnerable individual when an intermediary assists their communication in court. In the present study 100 participants viewed a mock cross examination of a child witness either with or without an intermediary present. Participants rated the child’s behaviour and communication, and the quality of the cross examination, across a number of different variables. The age of the child was also manipulated with participants viewing a cross examination of a four or a 13 year old child. The results showed the children’s behaviour and the quality of the cross-examination were more highly rated when the intermediary was involved during cross-examination. The older child’s cross-examination was rated as more developmentally appropriate, however no other age differences or interactions emerged. The findings have positive implications for jury perceptions of children’s testimony when they are assisted by an intermediary in court, regardless of the age of the child witness. The success of the intermediary scheme in England and Wales may encourage the implementation of intermediaries internationally.     

医疗事故技术鉴定专家出庭质证问题阐释

医疗事故技术鉴定专家出庭接受质证是法院审查、认定鉴定结论以及克服医疗事故技术鉴定自身中立性不足和程序不完善等问题的必然要求。鉴定专家出庭接受质证程序要体现交叉询问原则,同时,要引入专家辅助人、专家陪审员制度以构建均衡合理的质证主体结构。质证的内容应该围绕鉴定专家资格,鉴定结论的相关性、科学性、事实材料充分性、证明过程符合逻辑性等来展开。     

DNA evidence in South Africa: Lessons learned to date

A trend was noted over the past 15 years in the South African courts. This trend has a multi-factorial origin and highlights the problems faced in the use of forensic science evidence in court. Although there have been improvements on how DNA evidence is gathered and presented in court, due to the fact that certain cases have been contested at the DNA evidence level, multiple issues remain that have not yet been addressed when DNA evidence is submitted to court. These issues include: accreditation, regulation of the forensic science profession, continued education, training of court officials, quality assurance, biased testimony, lack of transparency with regard to processes and procedures followed in the forensic community, incorrect interpretation of DNA evidence, lack of scientific knowledge (including the scientific method) by DNA experts, awareness by the legal profession and an over emphasis on the prosecuting perspective. These same aspects continue to plague current cases. Despite the above, the window of opportunity to address the above has not yet passed. However, it will take continuous and concerted efforts from the scientific and legal professions to bring about the appropriate change to facilitate justice for all in South Africa.     

论专家辅助人意见——以刑事辩护为视角的分析

我国2012年新《刑事诉讼法》首次设立专家辅助人制度，对鉴定意见的质证提供了技术上的支持，对于刑事辩护来说意义重大。从证据法的角度看来，专家辅助人意见具有言词证据、意见证据、弹劾证据的多重属性，因此意见的内容应围绕鉴定意见中的专门性问题，并结合《刑事诉讼法》及相关司法解释对鉴定意见的审查判断规则来提出；而法庭对于鉴定意见的审查也应从准入资格与可靠性两方面进行，以免专家辅助人意见替代鉴定意见来主导审判。     

Training of legal professionals in DNA evidence

The South African Criminal Legal System is based on Roman Dutch law. Court proceedings are led by a single presiding officer of the court. Prosecutors and defence advocates present the court with evidence in an adversarial manner. This system has inherent advantages and disadvantages and therefore the training of legal professionals in handling DNA evidence in court is important. The prosecutors resort under the National Prosecuting Authority and the defence advocates act independently or e.g. under the auspices of Legal Aid South Africa.Education curricula of legal professional do not include forensic science evidence. Principles such as evidential value in the forensic context are not addressed. Training of legal professionals with our Essential DNA Evidence™ Course has been a multiplier of forensic science knowledge in the legal profession in South Africa. We present prosecution and defence perspectives in an unbiased manner, compensating for the possible subjective interpretations of evidence that may be presented in court. Forensic evidence is subsequently carefully evaluated prior to being court presentation thus improving court efficiency, and allowing for a more focussed approach to the presentation of evidence. Approaches to the customisation of course content that adds value has been identified via evaluation of training programmes.Experience has shown that legal professionals have the ability to incorporate relatively complex scientific concepts into their legal arguments if provided with the appropriate training opportunity. Appropriate training in DNA evidence has made the court process more effective, both in terms of time and costs, and ultimately serves justice.