美国汽车判例中的专家意见证据

美国汽车产品责任诉讼中主要适用成文法和判例法。通过对一起典型判例的分析，阐述了专家意见证据在此类诉讼中的重要作用。虽然照搬美国的经验并不可取，但在汽车保有量日益增长的今天，我们依然可以让专家在与产品安全有关的行政执法和司法诉讼中有所作为，从而解决我国包括汽车在内的产品责任侵权案件中的瓶颈问题。     

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。     

The Neuropsychologist as Expert Witness: Testimony in Civil and Criminal Settings

The niche of forensic neuropsychology and use of neuropsychologists as expert witnesses has proliferated over the past two decades. Neuropsychologists conduct evaluations or provide consultation to assist triers of fact in both civil and criminal arenas. This article delivers a succinct overview of an array of factors that warrant consideration from the time of referral for a neuropsychological evaluation through the delivery of a verdict or settlement and receipt of payment for services. Readers are offered a primer on relevant legal criteria, distinctions between court settings, and applicable ethical standards and guidelines. Suggestions are made regarding the expert witness retention agreement and strategies for direct and cross examination are reviewed. Logistical and liability considerations are also explored. Real world examples are included to illustrate some of the obstacles that neuropsychologist expert witnesses may encounter.     

Expert Evidence Pertaining to Battered Women: The Impact of Gender of Expert and Timing of Testimony

The present study investigated the impact of two variables relating to general expert testimony pertaining to battered women on juror decision processes. Specifically, the gender of the expert, as well as the timing of the presentation of the testimony, were investigated in a simulated homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Results indicated that when the expert was female and the testimony was presented prior to the defendant's testimony, jurors' verdicts were more lenient. Moreover, across a range of case judgments, male jurors' perceptions were more favorable to the defendant when the expert was female as opposed to male. On two of the judgments this latter pattern of results was only evidenced when the testimony was presented early as opposed to late. The significance of these findings is discussed.     

Expert Testimony on Psychological Injury: Procedural and Evidentiary Issues

This article introduces psychologists to aspects of the legal process most pertinent to their role as expert witnesses in civil litigation. It summarizes the role of psychological evidence in the adjudication of common law tort claims, the structure of the court system, and the stages of the litigation process. It also explains the various roles a psychological expert may play during litigation and the implications of those roles for expert confidentiality and disclosure. The article then provides an overview of legal policy governing the admissibility of psychological expertise, especially as admissibility is affected by the “Daubert” standard applied in most North American courts.     

Jurors'Evaluations of Expert Testimony: Judging the Messenger and the Message

Jurors are laypersons with no specific expert knowledge, yet they are routinely placed in situations in which they need to critically evaluate complex expert testimony. This paper examines jurors'reactions to experts who testify in civil trials and the factors jurors identify as important to expert credibility. Based on in-depth qualitative analyses of interviews with 55 jurors in 7 civil trials, we develop a comprehensive model of the key factors jurors incorporate into the process of evaluating expert witnesses and their testimony. Contrary to the frequent criticism that jurors primarily evaluate expert evidence in terms of its subjective characteristics, the results of our study indicate that jurors consider both the messenger and the message in the course of evaluating the expert's credibility.     

Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse

Expert medical testimony in child sexual abuse cases can be critical to the outcome of a legal case. This article will review the development of the medical knowledge and clinical expertise in child sexual abuse. Since the passage of mandatory child abuse reporting laws, the forensic medical examination of a child for evidence of sexual abuse has become standard. Until recently, many myths regarding female genital anatomy existed but were based primarily on dogma and lack of empirical research. Over the past 25 years, many research studies and accumulating clinical evidence have expanded medical knowledge and debunked old myths. Physical evidence, even in cases of alleged genital or anal penetration is rare. Sexually transmitted infections are also uncommon and often require medical interpretation as to their significance in a prepubertal child. Specialized medical knowledge, training, and clinical expertise have developed in order to evaluate children presenting with allegations of sexual abuse. Such medical expertise provides invaluable service to courts. We review criteria for evaluating such expertise in light of current medical practice.     

The Impact of Daubert on the Admissibility of Forensic Anthropology Expert Testimony

Forensic anthropologists anticipated a significant impact from the 1993 Supreme Court Daubert decision, which addressed the standard of admissibility for expert testimony. In response, many forensic articles cited Daubert in the search for objective techniques or a critique of established subjective methods. This study examines challenges to forensic anthropological expert testimony to evaluate whether Daubert has actually affected the admissibility of such testimony. Thirty cases were identified that addressed the admissibility of the testimony, including 14 cases prior to Daubert and 16 after Daubert. Examination of these cases indicates that post‐Daubert cases do not result in more exclusions. Yet, this lack of exclusions may instead be viewed as a manifestation of the field's overall surge toward more objective and quantifiable techniques in a self‐regulating response to Daubert.     

论我国司法鉴定人出庭作证制度的完善

鉴定人出庭作证制度，法律其实已有规定，但最大的问题也即源头问题，恰是现行法律规定得过于原则、过于灵活，同时相关司法解释又自废武功，削其刚性，导致我国司法鉴定人出庭作证的现状堪忧。就制度的构建和完善而言，司法人员和鉴定人的问题。往往成了随之而生的次问题。解铃还须系铃人，问题的解决之道，要从源头抓起。因此，在我国司法鉴定人出庭作证这一根本制度已经初步建立起来的前提下，其完善主要得从立法上进行具体制度安排。当务之急，是构建与完善以下几项具体制度。     

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.     

重庆地区324例司法精神病鉴定分析

目的了解重庆地区司法精神病鉴定的现状与特点。方法采用自制调查表对324例司法精神病鉴定资料的人口统计学特征和犯罪学特征进行分析。结果既有医学结论又有法学结论的共322例。精神分裂症145例（45.03%）,精神发育迟滞51例（15.84%）,其余几种精神障碍78例（24.22%）,三者共占85.09%;无精神病48例（14.91%）。责任能力211例（65.53%）,性防卫能力41例（12.73%）。结论有精神病者占绝大多数,反映出司法精神病鉴定的重要性和必要性;法学结论的种类多,表明鉴定案件的多样化与复杂化。     

Expert Testimony of the Battered Person Syndrome, Defendant Gender, and Sexual Orientation in a Case of Duress: Evaluating Legal Decisions

The current study examined the utility of expert testimony of the battered person syndrome (BPS) in a case of duress and the extent to which defendant gender, defendant sexual orientation, and participant gender influence mock jury decisions in a case of duress. Participants (N?=?413) read a scenario based on U.S. v. Dixon (2006) and answered questions assessing verdict, guilt, sentence length, duress legal elements, and attributes typically ascribed to victims of abuse. Results showed heterosexual female defendants were assigned the lowest sentences and met more of the legal elements of duress (i.e., were coerced, more likely to be believed, and purchased a gun to prevent harm) and attributes (i.e., experienced severe abuse, learned helplessness) compared to other defendants. When mock jurors received expert testimony, they provided lower rates of guilt and sentencing for defendants. Results also showed the inclusion of BPS expert testimony increased ratings for many of the legal elements of duress and attributes typically associated with intimate partner violence. In addition, results suggested that while heterosexual female defendants are more likely to be believed in a case of duress, expert testimony of BPS is helpful to all defendants. Limitations and future directions for research and practice are discussed.     

Expert Testimony Pertaining to Battered Woman Syndrome: Its Impact on Jurors' Decisions

Participants (N = 200) were presented with a criminal homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Within the trial, both the response history (passive, active) and presence of expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome (present, absent) were systematically varied. As well, half of the participants in each of these conditions were provided with a nullification instruction informing them that they were free to disregard the law and acquit should a strict application of the law result in an unjust verdict. Results indicated that, compared to the passive response condition, the mock jurors were no less receptive to the expert testimony in the active response condition. The impact of the testimony on participants' verdicts, however, was moderated by the nullification instruction. That is, although the presence of the testimony did result in greater verdict leniency, this only occurred when the mock jurors had been released from a strict application of the law. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式之比较

专家证人模式与司法鉴定模式是英美法系和大陆法系在解决专门性事实问题上两种不同的模式。两者在法律文化基础、有关专家的诉讼地位和资格、程序启动、质证、证据能力和证明力上都有很大的不同。然而,由于两种模式都存在其固有的缺陷,近年来各国都在进行相应的改革,出现了相互融合和借鉴的趋势。     

Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System*

Abstract. While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a dialectical context as a set of critical questions of the kind commonly used in models of argumentation.     

Expert Testimony Using the Rorschach Performance Assessment System in Psychological Injury Cases

The Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS; Meyer et al. 2011) is a new system for administering, scoring, and interpreting the Rorschach Inkblot Test that is designed to make the best possible use of currently available scientific and clinical evidence. Many features of R-PAS are well-suited to forensic evaluation generally and to psychological evaluations in psychological injury cases in particular. Among them, R-PAS: (a) offers an alternative to self-report methods that adds incremental validity, (b) provides a useful check against exaggerated or minimized symptom presentation, (d) generates evidence concerning implicit traits and behavioral tendencies, (e) offers techniques for adjusting for abnormal response sets, (f) uses internationally applicable reference data that do not exaggerate or minimize pathology, (g) organizes results according to the strength of the evidence, and (h) presents results on which are interpretations are based in a manner easy for the intelligent layperson to grasp. Despite its recent formal introduction to the professional assessment community, R-PAS takes advantage of decades of research in peer-reviewed publications (including the insights of Rorschach critics) and builds on established validity and general acceptance for most of its procedures and features. The article describes the standards and criteria applying to expert psychological testimony in U.S. federal and state courts and applies them to Rorschach-based testimony in general and R-PAS-based testimony specifically. It is argued that when the system is properly used and applied and when such testimony is appropriately formulated, it should be found admissible in both state and federal courtrooms