论法医学鉴定人出庭作证

本文探讨法庭作证的价值、方法。着重研究了法医学鉴定人的素质与鉴定结论的价值。最后息结指出只有高素质的法医学鉴定人才能承担新世纪的鉴定重任。使法庭作证永远走向成功。     

An interdisciplinary collaborative model for developing psycholegal questions in court ordered child custody evaluations

When a child custody evaluation is ordered from the bench, it is common practice for a judge to include a request for psychological evaluation of the parents and their minor children. Occasionally, a judge will provide a list of questions to be assessed. It is often left to the examiner to draw inferences from the court order and pleadings about the precise scope and purpose of the evaluation. This article proposes a model for the interdisciplinary collaboration of judges, attorneys and evaluators prior to the writing of the court order in the formulation of specific psycholegal questions that reflect the concerns of the court as well as those of the attorney and their clients and which may be anchored in the behavioral science literature. Such a model best suits the court by providing information on specific, legally relevant areas useful to the trier of fact.     

TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION

Tippins and Wittmann provide a cogent argument for custody evaluators not to make recommendations to the court. From their forensic and scientific perspectives, they have identified some important issues, which will certainly stimulate interesting discussion among custody evaluators. In response to their article, it is my view that public sector custody evaluations offer a philosophical and procedural alternative to forensic evaluations. This article proposes that recommendations should be viewed as part of the process of evaluations rather than the outcome. Based on a qualitative and interpretive model, recommendations are judged based on their applicability, transferability, and transparency. Recommendations viewed in qualitative terms provide parents with opportunities to step out of litigation and provide guidance for parents' ongoing roles postseparation.     

RESPONDING TO THE CALL FOR CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS TO JUSTIFY THE REASON FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL EXISTENCE: SOME THOUGHTS ON KELLY AND RAMSEY (2009)

Kelly and Ramsey (2009 ) propose that it is time to examine the costs and benefits courts and participants derive from child custody evaluations. A structure for a research program was suggested. This article endorses this call for such an examination on the system that provides for forensic mental health evaluations for custody disputes. There is a need to examine the costs and benefits of various types of approaches that are emerging, including the comprehensive evaluation and brief, focused evaluations. This article suggests that there is a need for forensic quality control of the work product that is produced by evaluators. Courts are cognizant of the need to encourage settlement between parties, but they also need to be accurate in making judicial determinations that will be in the best interests of children. Quality evaluations are a cornerstone in working toward this goal. Kelly and Ramsey are mindful of the need for evaluations to facilitate settlement, but also to get it right for the court on accurate predictions about children's developmental outcomes.     

关于刑事诉讼法修改中有关司法鉴定问题的思考

由省级人民政府指定的医院进行司法鉴定,不仅限制了司法鉴定机构的执业权利,造成法律适用上的混乱,而且在实践中也不具有可行性。此外,对于鉴定人无正当理由拒绝出庭作证的法律责任,无论是从法院与鉴定人的关系,鉴定人强制出庭作证来看,还是从司法拘留的适用性质来看,都不应当强制鉴定人出庭。上述是刑事诉讼法中有关司法鉴定的两个重要问题,应当借此次修改的机会,完善刑事诉讼领域的司法鉴定制度,促进法律协调统一。     

COMMENTARY ON "EMPIRICAL AND ETHICAL PROBLEMS WITH CUSTODY RECOMMENDATIONS:"

Whether or not custody evaluators, testifying as expert witnesses, continue to make specific custody recommendations, custody decision making will continue to be based upon inadequate and untested evidence unless and until we reform the family court system in American courtrooms. Judges and lawyers must have specialized knowledge and training about such things as the developmental needs of children, the effects of divorce on children, domestic violence, and child safety issues; lawyers must develop litigation as well as mediation and negotiation skills; specialized family courts utilizing individual calendars and case management techniques must be established; and the complexities and intellectual challenges of family law cases needs to be recognized.     

《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。     

CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATION PRACTICES: A 20‐YEAR FOLLOW‐UP

This study surveyed 213 experienced child custody evaluators utilizing the same questionnaire in the Ackerman & Ackerman 1997 and Keilin & Bloom 1986 studies. Demographic information, evaluation practices, custody decision‐making, and recommendations were surveyed. Comparisons were made across all three studies to identify the similarities and differences in child custody evaluation practices over the past 20 years. This study added questions about risk management and ethical issues, and current practices in placement/access schedules. The reader is advised that not engaging in the practices performed by a majority of psychologists could result in a difficult testimony experience.     

Forensic Methods and Procedures Applied to Child Custody Evaluations: What Judges Need to Know in Determining a Competent Forensic Work Product

Judges are seeing an increase in the number of forensic reports in the area of child custody. This increase in forensic mental health involvement suggests that judges need to better understand the application of current forensic mental health methodology to assist them in determining a competent forensic work product. Recent literature has argued that child custody evaluators need to craft their reports consistent with scientific methods and procedures as well as legal standards governing admissibility of scientific evidence. This paper provides a framework for judges to assist in determining whether a child custody evaluation has been crafted consistent with current behavioral science literature pertaining to use of forensic mental health methods and procedures.     

THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING

The legal standards for admissibility of expert testimony have recently been raised following several U.S. Supreme Court decisins. Although forensic mental health experts have relied on psychological testing as a method of data collection for many years, the scientific basis of such testing has traditionally gone unquestioned in court. Given the increased scrutiny currently being applied to expert testimony, it is more important now than ever for attorneys, judges and forensic experts to understand the scientific principles underlying psychological tests. In this article, the scientific principles of validity and reliability are explained, and scientifically acceptable methods for the forensic use of psychological testing are discussed. The application of recent case law to several well-known tests is described.     

论鉴定结论的证据能力

鉴定证据规则在本质上是一套规范鉴定结论证据能力的规则，为此，我们需要构建完善的证据能力规则和排除规则来规范鉴定人出庭问题，辩护方鉴定结论的使用问题。并要完善相关的其它制度。     

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF REFERRAL ISSUES AND “ULTIMATE ISSUE” RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARENTS IN CHILD PROTECTION CASES*

Mental health professionals frequently respond to requests for clinical information on parents in child protection cases; however, little data exist on the issues precipitating requests or on the controversial practice of offering “ultimate issue” recommendations in forensic clinical reports. We investigated 243 requests for clinical information on parents and 204 clinician reports submitted for use in child abuse and neglect proceedings in a large, urban juvenile court system. We coded 56 objective and qualitative characteristics regarding referral questions, pending legal issues, and four levels of recommendations. We found that the most common referral questions related to service planning, parenting ability, and/or parents' mental health functioning, and the most common pending legal issues were selection or change of a permanency goal and visitation arrangements. Levels of recommendations varied with type of legal decision, in that clinicians always offered direct recommendations for narrow, statute‐based issues (e.g., termination of rights, adoption) and less so for other issues. Community‐based evaluators were more likely to offer direct recommendations than court‐based clinicians. Based on the findings, we offer practice recommendations and directions for further research in forensic parenting assessment.     

THE BENEFITS AND RISKS OF CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COURT:

In their article, Tippins and Wittmann articulate a strong position against custody evaluators making specific custody recommendations to the court. This response will focus on my thoughts about their concepts and my belief that recommendations can be useful and appropriate some of the time, even though there may be significant problems with certain types of recommendations and problems with some evaluators.     

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.     

Forensic human identification in the United States and Canada: A review of the law, admissible techniques, and the legal implications of their application in forensic cases

Forensic human identification techniques are successful if they lead to positive personal identification. However, the strongest personal identification is of no use in the prosecution - or vindication - of an accused if the associated evidence and testimony is ruled inadmissible in a court of law. This review examines the U.S. and Canadian legal rulings regarding the admissibility of expert evidence and testimony, and subsequently explores four established methods of human identification (i.e., DNA profiling, forensic anthropology, forensic radiography, forensic odontology) and one complementary technique useful in determining identity, and the legal implications of their application in forensic cases.     

SCIENTIFICALLY CRAFTED CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

This article proposes a model for the interdisciplinary colloboration of judges, attorneys, and evaluators prior to the writting of a court order for child custody evaluation in the formulation of specific psycholegal questions that guide the examination. These questions accurately reflect the concerns of the court, the attorneys, and the parties to the dispute while framing the evaluation questions within the behavioral sciences, suitable for evaluation by a mental health professional. Such a model best suits the court by providing information on specific, legally relevant areas of parenting, child development, and/or mental health useful to the trier of fact.     

Issues in the global applications of methodology in forensic anthropology

The project and research reported in this collection of articles follows a long-term historical pattern in forensic anthropology in which new case work and applications reveal methodological issues that need to be addressed. Forensic anthropological analysis in the area of the former Yugoslavia led to questions raised regarding the applicability of methods developed from samples in other regions. The subsequently organized project reveals that such differences exist and new methodology and data are presented to facilitate applications in the Balkan area. The effort illustrates how case applications and court testimony can stimulate research advances. The articles also serve as a model for the improvement of methodology available for global applications.     

THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTING IN CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATIONS

Evaluation of families for purposes of assisting the court in making decisions about custody is perhaps the most complicated forensic evaluation. Mental health professionals conducting such evaluations must ensure that their evaluations validly assess areas of concern deemed relevant by the judiciary and legislature. Evaluators sometimes use psychological measures in the evaluation process, and in recent years, a number of tests designed specifically for use in child custody evaluation contexts have been developed. Because some published tests do not meet basic professional standards, child custody evaluators should carefully review any test and its supporting documentation before including it in their examination procedures. In this article, the authors discuss the rationale for using psychological tests in child custody evaluations, describe current testing practices, review and critique contemporary custody evaluation instruments, and offer a template for mental health professionals to use when considering use of a particular test.     

专家证据：美国的经验与教训

本文第一部分解释为何评价专家证据的效力会存在特殊的认识论困境。第二部分追溯不同规则和程序的历史,美国法律制度通过这些规则和程序尽力保障或控制严重依赖的专家证据的质量—从Frye规则、联邦证据规则、Daubert三部曲到近代专家证人出庭的宪法案件,法庭指定专家的试验以及法官科学教育。第三和最后一部分指出从这些有限的成功经验中吸取的教训,并且探索未来更好的策略。     

Kumho, Daubert, and the nature of scientific inquiry: implications for forensic anthropology

In the last 15 years, the US Supreme Court has implemented major changes concerning the admittance of expert testimony. In 1993, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals superseded the Frye ruling in federal courts and established judges, not the scientific community, as the gatekeepers regarding the credibility of scientific evidence. In 1999, a lesser-known but equally important decision, Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, ruled that technical expert testimony needed to employ the same rigor as outlined in Daubert, but experts can develop theories based on observations and apply such theories to the case before the court. Anthropology has never been defined as a hard science. Yet, many recent publications have modified existing techniques to meet the Daubert criteria, while none have discussed the significance of Kumho to anthropological testimony. This paper examines the impact of Daubert and Kumho on forensic anthropology and illustrates areas of anthropological testimony best admitted under Kumho's guidance.