The dichotomy of the expert witness

The expert on either side is either right, partially right, wrong, or wrong and dishonest. Even strongly opposed testimony is not evidence of dishonesty, although it is clear at least one expert is wrong. Some differences are the result of legitimate differences of opinion. However, the author has identified several categories of testimony that show dishonest intent. It is clear that the growth of financial incentives has increased the number of cases in which there are opposing experts. If some kind of corrective action is not taken, expert witnesses will no longer be an effective force in the legal system. A multidisciplinary testimony review board separate from the ethics function is clearly one answer to the problem.     

论鉴定人制度的完善

本文通过比较研究,我国鉴定人制度和我国司法鉴定制度亟待解决的核心问题是完善鉴定人法律地位、资格,鉴定决定权与鉴定人作证制度等问题.提出我国鉴定人法律地位证人化,鉴定人资格规范化,鉴定决定权当事人化,鉴定人必须出庭作证拜须经资格审查,鉴定结论受传闻规则的制约.     

刑事证人作证制度的现状与完善

本文介绍了我国的刑事证人作证制度的现状 ,分析了存在的问题及其产生根源 ,并提出了完善证人作证制度的若干建议 ,即在立法中明确证人的义务 ,以及证人不履行义务应承担的责任 ,将拒证行为犯罪化 ,并且采取积极措施保障证人的有关权利 ,如保障证人及其亲属的人身权和财产权 ,补偿证人因出庭作证所遭受的经济损失 ,给予证人劳动保护等。     

对刑事证人出庭作证理论基础的思考

刑事证人出庭作证制度是证据法研究的热点之一,国内在该问题技术上的研究多于理论上的探索,似乎在该问题的理论基础上已有广泛的认同,即对义务论的认同,然而义务论会带来诸如主体工具之说,自由功利之说的许多困惑,相反,权利论却有独特的优势,因此如果尝试从权利论的角度解读证人作证制度,或许会有所收获。     

Child witness statement quality

Use of general questions in child witness interviews often limits the completeness of young children's recall. In this study experienced professionals interviewed 5–6 year olds and 8–9 year olds “as they would normally” about live events witnessed by the children. Interviewers' spontaneous use of general and specific questions was assessed, as were the effects of these question types on the children's recall. A main result was that the younger children would frequently fail to answer general questions but would then provide information relevant to these same questions later in the interview. Use of specific questions in these relatively naturalistic interviews did not necessarily improve the overall completeness of younger children's recall, contrary to some previous findings, although, in line with previous findings, such questioning reduced overall accuracy rates. These results highlighted the scale of the problem of “omission errors” in young children's recall. Implications for the use of general questions by professionals who interview child witnesses are discussed.     

Trace evidence--the invisible witness

This paper reviews the use of microscopic trace evidence in actual casework. Three cases are discussed in which the microscopic analysis of trace evidence was used to: associate the people, places, and things involved in the incident; reconstruct the event; and describe the occupation(s) of the participants. Each case is discussed in detail from the initial stages of the investigation through the use of the trace evidence during the investigation and at the trial.     

律师见证制度中的两大悖论

律师见证是指律师接受双方当事人的委托，以律师事务所的名义对民事法律行为的真实性、合法性进行证明和监督的一项活动。它旨在实现法律正义，然而，笔者发现该制度在设计与实际运行中存在两大悖论，即主观与客观的悖论和初衷与实效的悖论，致使该制度带有不客观、不公正的天性，并陡增处理民事官司的复杂性。因此，笔者认为封这一制度的期待应是“到此为止”。     

Co‐witness information influences whether a witness is likely to choose from a lineup

Purpose. Much crime is witnessed by more than one eyewitness, and witnesses may learn information about other witness's decisions throughout the identification and trial process. The objective of this paper was to investigate whether hearing about a co‐witness's type of lineup decision and subsequent confidence level affects another witness's type of lineup choice. Methods. A total of 304 undergraduate students watched a crime video with a confederate co‐witness. After the video, the witnesses completed an identification task. Prior to completing the task, the participant learned that the confederate co‐witness either chose from or rejected the lineup and was subsequently confident or not confident in that decision (or heard no co‐witness information). Participants completed the identification task using either a target present (TP) or target absent (TA) lineup. Results. Overall, those who heard the co‐witness chose from the lineup were more likely to choose from the lineup than those who heard no co‐witness information or who heard the co‐witness rejected the lineup. In addition, witnesses who chose from the lineup and heard the co‐witness chose from or rejected the lineup expressed more confidence in that choice if the co‐witness was more confident versus if the co‐witness was less confident. Conclusions. In cases of multiple witnesses, identification decisions may not be independent pieces of evidence. Therefore, it is important that police separate co‐witnesses throughout the identification process.     

Judicial perceptions of child witness competence

Concern about the difficulties faced by child witnesses in the legal system has led to two major areas of reform: the relaxation of competence and corroboration requirements, and the introduction of special procedures and physical facilities to reduce the emotional pressures of testifying. Although the implementation of these measures depends largely on judicial discretion, little is known about judicial perceptions of child witnesses and about judicial acceptance of these measures. Fifty magistrates and judges in New South Wales, Australia were asked via interview or questionnaire about their beliefs, concerns, and practices related to child witnesses. There was considerable variability in their views about the competence of child witnesses and the need for special protective measures in court for these witnesses. There was, however, more consensus about those aspects of children's ability to testify that give rise to judicial concerns about their competence. Children's honesty was not at issue; they were generally regarded as being at least as honest as adults, if not more so. They were, however, perceived as highly suggestible and susceptible to the influence of others and prone to fantasy. These findings are consistent with the findings of other studies, and provide a basis for judicial education in relation to child witnesses.     

The Cognitive Interview: novice police officers' witness/victim interviewing practices

Abstract

The objective of this study was to investigate novice police officers’ witness interview practices immediately post investigative interview training (known as PEACE) with reference to the eight Cognitive Interview (CI) components taught. Forty-eight UK police officers took part as interviewers. Forty-eight undergraduates participated as mock witness; they viewed a non-violent crime video and 2 days later were individually interviewed by a police officer. Interviews were recorded and rated for officers’ application of the CI procedure.

Despite having recently completed the only training available to them no officer applied or attempted to apply the CI procedure in its entirety. However, some of the individual CI components were applied more frequently than others. This study provides a unique insight into the interviewing practices of some of the least researched, least experienced, and least trained investigative interviewers who, nonetheless, conduct witness interviews on a daily basis. The emergent picture suggests that either the CI procedure currently taught to novice police officers is too complex at so early a stage in their police career and/or that the current training may be insufficient to equip them with the skills necessary to effectively apply the procedure.     

Notes on the psychologist expert witness

The psychologist who takes the witness stand to testify concerning the reliability of an eyewitness's testimony should assume the role of a watchdog, not a lapdog for the prosecution or an attack dog for the defense. The watchdog role is illustrated by a discussion of the decisions made by the author before accepting an invitation to testify as an expert.     

证人拒证的伦理冲突与比较考察

在刑事诉讼中,物证的价值愈来愈得以凸显,但人证的作用也是无论如何不能忽视的.诚然,证人在查明案件事实,实现国家刑罚权方面具有重要作用,可基于诸如婚姻、亲属关系、职业秘密以及公务秘密等特定的原因,证人可以拒绝作证,这其中既蕴含看法理基础,同时也具有伦理意蕴.在证人拒绝作证方面,美国等国家建构了较为成熟的制度和理论,在与我国具体情景磨合之后,可责借鉴,以达到他山之石,可以攻玉的目的.     

Expert witness in international war crimes tribunals

Abstract

The author has served as an expert witness in eight different cases tried before war crimes tribunals, involving twelve accused. Only three of the twelve accused were convicted. Seven were acquitted and two cases are still pending. The general defense strategy in such cases is to admit the crimes, but to challenge the involvement or responsibility of the accused. Identity then becomes the main issue to be proven by the prosecution. From the verdicts it appears that problems of identification were a major reason for acquittal. A closer look at the cases demonstrates that these problems were entirely due to an astounding naivety of the various prosecutors with respect to identification issues. The identification procedures used by the investigators were violating even the basic principles developed in many years of research in the area of psychology and law. This is even more shocking when it is realized how important these trials are, not only for the accused, but also for the witnesses, the victims, their relatives, their communities, and for international justice.

Since 1987 I have been asked eight times to testify in war crimes trials. The venues were, in chronological order:

• The Special Court in Jerusalem for the trial of suspects accused of crimes in the Second World War – the case against John Demjanjuk.

• The Special Dutch Court for the trial of suspects accused of crimes against humanity in the Second World War – the case against Marinus De Rijke.

• The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY); five cases: against Du?ko Tadi? (IT-94-1), Vlatko Kupreskic (IT-95-16), Fatmir Limaj et al. (IT-03-66-T), Ramush Haradinaj et al. (IT-04-84), and Ljubisa Beara (IT-05-88-T).

• The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) – the case against Jérôme–Clement Bicamumpaka (ICTR 99-5-T).

In this paper I will describe some of my experiences, and try to formulate some lessons that I have learned.