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。     

Forensic identification science evidence since Daubert: Part II--judicial reasoning in decisions to exclude forensic identification evidence on grounds of reliability

Many studies regarding the legal status of forensic science have relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's mandate in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., and its progeny in order to make subsequent recommendations or rebuttals. This paper focuses on a more pragmatic approach to analyzing forensic science's immediate deficiencies by considering a qualitative analysis of actual judicial reasoning where forensic identification evidence has been excluded on reliability grounds since the Daubert precedent. Reliance on general acceptance is becoming insufficient as proof of the admissibility of forensic evidence. The citation of unfounded statistics, error rates and certainties, a failure to document the analytical process or follow standardized procedures, and the existence of observe bias represent some of the concerns that have lead to the exclusion or limitation of forensic identification evidence. Analysis of these reasons may serve to refocus forensic practitioners' testimony, resources, and research toward rectifying shortfalls in these areas.     

《刑事诉讼法》有关鉴定问题的修改与评价

《刑事诉讼法修正案》就鉴定意见作为证据的名称、省政府指定医院、鉴定人出庭的法律后果、鉴定人人身保障以及有专门知识的人出庭协助公诉人、当事人和辩护人、诉讼代理人就鉴定意见提出意见等方面作出了修改,其意义是不可低估的。同时,由于修改的内容在前瞻性上不明显,有些重要的问题,如鉴定启动权、强制鉴定等没有涉及,仍需要司法鉴定制度改革予以进一步完善与弥补。     

中世纪欧洲法医学溯源

法医学是应用病理学、生物学、生物化学和其他医学科学理论和技能解决法律问题,为侦查和审判提供证据的科学。法医学学科属性是医学,其目的是解决法律问题,因而法医学同时具有自然科学和人文科学属性。现今,我们对于法医学的研究往往局限在自然科学领域,而对其人文学科属性却有所忽视。当代西方法医学起源自中世纪的欧洲大陆,当时罗马法和教会法占统治地位,它们没有设立陪审团制度,而且允许对嫌疑人进行刑讯逼供,而英美法系的司法审判程序设立了陪审团制度。在这两种司法体制下,法医医学证言、证词逐步形成了两种形式：英美法系控诉式诉讼体制下的言辞证据形式和罗马法诉讼中纠问体制下的书证形式。本文将对中世纪欧洲的法医学进行溯源研究,从欧洲法医学的起源和发展角度,完善法医学史研究内容,为世界法医学史比较研究提供借鉴。     

The Testimony of Forensic Identification Science: What Expert Witnesses Say and What Factfinders Hear

This research examined how variations in the presentation of forensic science information affect factfinders’ judgments in a trial. Participants read a summary of a murder case, the critical testimony being the results of a microscopic hair comparison given by a forensic expert. Across two experiments we manipulated how the expert expressed his results, whether he gave an explicit conclusion concerning identity of the hair, and whether the limitations of forensic science were expressed during trial. Qualitative testimony was more damaging to the defense than quantitative testimony, conclusion testimony increased the defendant’s culpability ratings when findings were presented quantitatively, and expressing limitations of forensic science had no appreciable effect. Results are discussed in terms of factfinders’ interpretation of forensic identification evidence.     

人体损伤程度鉴定的演绎推理模式

人体损伤程度鉴定从属于法医临床学,是源于司法实践的需要,从医学发展而来的一门技术,具有很强的实践性和社会性,其主要功能是为诉讼,特别是为刑事诉讼提供鉴定结论。法律制度层面的设计,从抽象的标准出发,评价诉讼中的具体损伤,决定了其常见的论证模式是演绎推理。     

鉴定意见的审查判断问题

司法鉴定制度的改革不仅带来了司法鉴定体制的变化,而且促成了相关证据规则的完善。作为一种法定的证据种类,＂鉴定意见＂不再具有＂鉴定结论＂的效力,而要像其他证据一样,在证明力和证据能力方面经受法庭上的审查过程。违背法定的鉴定主体资格、鉴定程序、鉴真方法或鉴定文书的形式要件,鉴定人所提供的鉴定意见应被排除于法庭之外。有关鉴定意见的证据能力规则,不仅维护了法律程序的实施,而且可最大限度地增强该证据的证明力。从未来刑事证据法发展的角度来看,只有在宏观层面的司法体制和中观层面的鉴定程序方面发生实质性的变化,处于微观层面的鉴定证据规则才能有更大的制度空间。     

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.     

Wrongful convictions and claims of false or misleading forensic evidence

The results are reported of a study to examine case factors associated with 732 wrongful convictions classified by the National Registry of Exonerations as being associated with “False or Misleading Forensic Evidence.” A forensic error typology has been developed to provide a structure for the categorization and coding of factors relating to misstatements in forensic science reports; errors of individualization or classification; testimony errors; issues relating to trials and officers of the court; and evidence handling and reporting issues. This study, which included the analysis of 1391 forensic examinations, demonstrates that most errors related to forensic evidence are not identification or classification errors by forensic scientists. When such errors are made, they are frequently associated with incompetent or fraudulent examiners, disciplines with an inadequate scientific foundation, or organizational deficiencies in training, management, governance, or resources. More often, forensic reports or testimony miscommunicate results, do not conform to established standards, or fail to provide appropriate limiting information. Just as importantly, actors within the broader criminal justice system—but not under the purview of any forensic science organization—may contribute to errors that may be related to the forensic evidence. System issues include reliance on presumptive tests without confirmation by a forensic laboratory, use of independent experts outside the administrative control of public laboratories, inadequate defense, and suppression or misrepresentation of forensic evidence by investigators or prosecutors. In approximately half of wrongful convictions analyzed, improved technology, testimony standards, or practice standards may have prevented a wrongful conviction at the time of trial.     

The importance of forensic evidence for decisions on criminal guilt

Recent studies have found that the general public perceives forensic evidence to be relatively inaccurate and to involve high levels of human judgement. This study examines how important the general public finds forensic evidence by comparing decisions on guilt and punishment in criminal cases that involve forensic versus eyewitness testimony evidence and examining whether a CSI effect exists. Specifically, this experimental survey study utilized a 2 (crime type: murder or rape) × 4 (evidence type: DNA, fingerprint, victim eyewitness testimony, or bystander eyewitness testimony) ? 1 (no victim testimony for murder scenario) design, yielding seven vignettes scenarios to which participants were randomly assigned. Results indicate that forensic evidence was associated with more guilty verdicts and higher confidence in a guilty verdict. Forensic evidence did not change the expected sentence length and did not generally affect the ideal sentence length. However, for rape, respondents believed that the defendant should receive a longer sentence when forensic evidence was presented but forensic evidence did not alter likely sentence that respondents expected the defendant to receive. The results of this study did not support a CSI effect. Overall, this study suggests that forensic evidence – particularly DNA – has a stronger influence during the verdict stage than the sentencing stage.     

论证据的种类

我国法律将证据分为八种是缺乏根据的。八种“证据”中只有物证、书证是两种独立的证据。证人证言、被害人陈述、犯罪嫌疑人、被告人供述和辩解只是人证的不同类型 ,而与物证、书证并列的只能是人证。勘验、检查笔录和鉴定结论都不是证据本身 ,它们只是反映了物证的物证资料。视听资料不是单一事物 ,其四种成分中只有一种成分是证据 ,且属于书证。根据以上分析 ,本文认为 ,证据只有三种 :物证、书证、人证。证据都是由事实构成的 ,事实构成证据的情况只有三种 :一是客观存在 ;二是被“书”记载 ;三是被人感知。三种情况下的事实只能构成三种证据。司法人员获得证据的途径也只有三种 :一是找证物 ;二是找“证书” ;三是找“证人”。     

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.     

High resolution melting analysis (HRM) based on 16SrRNA as a tool for personal identification with the human oral microbiome

Personal identification plays an important role in the forensic practice. The conventional methods of personal identification including STR, SNP and InDel are focusing on the molecular characteristics of the human cell. Recently, researchers pay attention to human microbiome by the reason that the human microbiome is rich in amount and variable among people. The purpose of this study is to apply the human oral microbiome to forensic personal identification. We designed one general primer pair: 518 F&806R, which targeted the 16SrRNA. We conducted the high-resolution melting analysis (HRM) with the one primer pairs. The results indicated that oral microbiome from different people could be distinguished by using HRM based on 16SrRNA. This study showed that human oral microbiome could be a promising marker for the forensic personal identification application.     

Qualifying the psychiatrist as a lay witness: a reaction to the American Psychiatric Association petition in Barefoot v. Estelle

Organized psychiatry has recently begun to define limits to expert testimony. The American Psychiatric Association filed an amicus brief in the case of Barefoot v. Estelle urging legal curtailment of psychiatric testimony as to future dangerousness and prohibition on Constitutional grounds of expert psychiatric testimony solely based on hypothetical data. The Supreme Court refused relief on both questions. Psychiatric testimony to ultimate questions at law is limited by the inherent contextual variables of psychiatric clinical and experimental knowledge and practice. A forensic science model for psychiatric participation with explicit psychiatrically defined limitations is proposed using competence to stand trial as an example.     

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.     

Educating Jurors about Forensic Evidence: Using an Expert Witness and Judicial Instructions to Mitigate the Impact of Invalid Forensic Science Testimony

Invalid expert witness testimony that overstated the precision and accuracy of forensic science procedures has been highlighted as a common factor in many wrongful conviction cases. This study assessed the ability of an opposing expert witness and judicial instructions to mitigate the impact of invalid forensic science testimony. Participants (N = 155) acted as mock jurors in a sexual assault trial that contained both invalid forensic testimony regarding hair comparison evidence, and countering testimony from either a defense expert witness or judicial instructions. Results showed that the defense expert witness was successful in educating jurors regarding limitations in the initial expert's conclusions, leading to a greater number of not-guilty verdicts. The judicial instructions were shown to have no impact on verdict decisions. These findings suggest that providing opposing expert witnesses may be an effective safeguard against invalid forensic testimony in criminal trials.     

Error Rates,Likelihood Ratios,and Jury Evaluation of Forensic Evidence

Forensic examiners regularly testify in criminal cases, informing the jurors whether crime scene evidence likely came from a source. In this study, we examine the impact of providing jurors with testimony further qualified by error rates and likelihood ratios, for expert testimony concerning two forensic disciplines: commonly used fingerprint comparison evidence and a novel technique involving voice comparison. Our method involved surveying mock jurors in Amazon Mechanical Turk (N = 897 laypeople) using written testimony and judicial instructions. Participants were more skeptical of voice analysis and generated fewer “guilty” decisions than for fingerprint analysis (B = 2.00, OR = 7.06, p = <0.000). We found that error rate information most strongly decreased “guilty” votes relative to no qualifying information for participants who heard fingerprint evidence (but not those that heard voice analysis evidence; B = −1.16, OR = 0.32, p = 0.007). We also found that error rates and conclusion types led to a greater decrease on “guilty” votes for fingerprint evidence than voice evidence (B = 1.44, OR = 4.23, p = 0.021). We conclude that these results suggest jurors adjust the weight placed on forensic evidence depending on their prior views about its reliability. Future research should develop testimony and judicial instructions that can better inform jurors of the strengths and limitations of forensic evidence.     

The Roles of Scientific and Clinical Epistemologies in Forensic Mental Health Assessments

This article discusses the respective contributions of scientific and clinical epistemologies to formulating expert opinions in personal injury and other forensic cases involving psychological testimony. It argues that each epistemology provides specific truth criteria that, though different, are both objective. It analyzes the reasons that some experts malign clinical judgments; compares each epistemology’s approach to truth; and identifies their respective roles in forensic assessments. It expands the scientific meanings of internal and external validity so that they apply to clinical evidence and then uses them to propose a schema for supporting or falsifying expert opinions as a whole. It concludes by discussing risks created by preferring one epistemology to the other, rather than appreciating their complementary roles.     

Meeting a Forensic Podiatry Admissibility Challenge: A Daubert Case Study

This article is an introduction to the United States Supreme Court's standard of admissibility of forensic evidence and testimony at trial, known as the Daubert standard, with emphasis on how this standard applies to the field of forensic podiatry. The author, a forensic podiatrist, provided law enforcement with evidence tying a bloody sock‐clad footprint found at the scene of a homicide to the suspect. In 2014, the author testified at a pretrial hearing, known as “a Daubert hearing,” to address the admissibility of this evidence in court. This was the first instance of forensic podiatry being the primary subject of a Daubert hearing. The hearing resulted in the court ordering this evidence admissible. The expert's testimony contributed to the suspect's conviction. This article serves as a reference for forensic podiatrists and experts in similar fields that involve impression evidence, providing evidentiary standards and their impact on expert evidence and testimony.