论专家证据的性质与地位

专家证据的主客观统一性、事实针对性和证明相对性的特点,决定了专家证据具有证据资料、证据方法的性质.由于诉讼的过程就是运用证据查明案件事实的过程,现代诉讼中,一切事实必须用证据加以证明,这一观念早已经成为一项重要的"证据裁判原则"或者"证据裁判主义"的诉讼原则.法官通过借助专家发表意见来协助其认定案件事实,专家证据就成为作为证据材料引入到诉讼中的必然,并且具有查明案件事实,解读其他证据,鉴别和认定其他证据的诉讼功能.     

The admissibility and persuasiveness of expert evidence

Parenting plan evaluators are expert witnesses who offer their opinion. Courts in common law jurisdictions generally do not accept evidence of an opinion as it is not considered to be reliable evidence from which to establish a fact. An exception to that general principle is expert opinion evidence. In short, an opinion from a person with specialized knowledge or expertise about the area in which they are an expert may be sufficiently reliable to form an evidentiary basis from which to make a finding of fact, provided the opinion meets certain criteria. These criteria will be discussed in this article, as well as what is relevant, reliable and persuasive evidence. The relevant legal principles will be examined in an historical and contemporary, theoretical and practical context. The authors reflect on their considerable experience as consumers of expert evidence and apply this to parenting plan evaluations, as well as considering future challenges in the field.     

Network investigations of cyber attacks: the limits of digital evidence

Cyber attackers are rarely held accountable for their criminal actions. One explanation for the lack of successful prosecutions of cyber intruders is the dependence on digital evidence. Digital evidence is different from evidence created, stored, transferred and reproduced from a non-digital format. It is ephemeral in nature and susceptible to manipulation. These characteristics of digital evidence raise issues as to its reliability. Network-based evidence – ie digital evidence on networks – poses additional problems because it is volatile, has a short life span, and is frequently located in foreign countries. Investigators face the twin obstacles of identifying the author of a cyber attack and proving that the author has “guilty knowledge.” Even more is at stake when the cyber attacker is a trusted insider who has intimate knowledge of the computer security system of the organisation. As courts become more familiar with the vulnerabilities of digital evidence, they will scrutinise the reliability of computer systems and processes. It is likely that defence counsel will increasingly challenge both the admissibility and the weight of digital evidence. The law enforcement community will need to improve competencies in handling digital evidence if it is to meet this trend.     

Weakening forensic science in Spain: from expert evidence to documentary evidence

An amendment in 2002 to the Spanish Code of Criminal Procedure converted into documentary evidence the expert reports prepared by official laboratories aimed at determining the nature, weight, and purity of seized drugs. In most cases, experts are spared from appearance before the courts. This is likely to be extended to other forensic fields. After an overview of criminalistic identification in current forensic science, the objectivity and reliability concepts used by jurists and scientists are considered by comparing the paradigm of individualization with that of likelihood. Subsequently, a detailed critical study is made on the above-mentioned Spanish legal reform, and a comparison is made with the decision on the Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts case as ruled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Although the reform is in compliance with the Spanish Constitution, it is at odds with science, in particular regarding the logic underpinning the scientific evaluation of evidence.     

Carney v Newton: expert evidence about the standard of clinical notes

In Carney v Newton [2006] TASSC 4 the Tasmanian Supreme Court heard a claim that the defendant breached his duty of care by failing to properly diagnose and treat a node positive carcinoma in the plaintiff's breast tissue. At trial, argument turned on the actual dialogue that took place during the initial consultation, with significant reliance on the clinical notes of the defendant. The court gave considerable weight to "expert" witnesses in ascertaining the acceptability of the defendant's conduct concerning the maintenance and interpretation of his clinical notes. This raises important questions in relation to proof of quality of medical records as part of the current professional standard of care, as modified by recent legislation in most jurisdictions.     

The curious case of Housing First: the limits of evidence based policy

Evidence Based Policy has been articulated and practiced in Europe, particularly under the ‘New Labour’ policies of the former Labour government in the United Kingdom. In the United States, the impact of research on policy has been inconsistent due to differing relationships between researchers and policy makers. This paper gives an overview of evidence based policy and presents critiques based on its reliance on positivist methods and technical approach to policy making. Using these critiques as a framework, the paper discusses the case of Housing First, a policy adopted by the Bush Administration in order to address the problem of chronic homelessness. The case is an example of research driven policy making but also resulted in a progressive policy being promoted by a conservative administration. In discussing the case, the paper elaborates on the relationship between evidence and policy, arguing that evidence based policy fails to integrate evidence and values into policy deliberations. The paper concludes with alternative models of policy decision making and their implications for research.     

Proof of cancer causation and expert evidence: bringing science to the law and the law to science

This article discusses the medico-scientific and the legal views of cancer causation and how these two approaches impact on expert evidence. Cancer cause lends itself well to an exploration of the critical issues which surround its proof and the role of expert evidence in this proof. The article does not seek to identify or to resolve all the controversies or inconsistencies in the area. Rather, it sets up a basic framework for the general presentation and testing of expert medico-scientific evidence in litigation related to cancer causation. Specifically, it seeks to identify the technical questions of law and medical science regarding which medico-scientific disciplines can be relevant to proving cancer causation, and who the relevant expert witnesses to achieve this task would be. Emerging areas of cancer causation are then examined in light of this framework.     

Trials of battered women who kill: the impact of alternative forms of expert evidence

The introduction of battered woman syndrome testimony in trials of battered women who have killed has stirred considerable debate within the psycholegal community. Much of the controversy stems from the testimony's focus on the woman's passivity, as well as its partrayal of a single profile of battered women. In light of these concerns, proposals to alter the content of the testimony (e.g., dropping the syndrome terminology, focus on battered women's social reality as opposed to their psychological state and reactions) have surfaced. In the present research both the woman's prior response history (passive, active) and the presence of expert testimony (battered woman syndrome, social agency, no expert control) were manipulated in a homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Overall, participants, drawn from both a university (N=195) and a nonuniversity setting (N=202), rendered more lenient verdicts and provided more favorable evaluations of the defendant's claim of self defense in the presence of expert testimony (either form) compared to a no expert control. Further, these effects were more pronounced for the student than the nonstudent sample. Implications of these findings for the use of expert evidence pertaining to battered women are discussed.     

澳大利亚联邦法院对专家证据的采纳

I. Introduction
The opinion evidence of experts is an exception to the general rule that witnesses can only give evidence of that which they have seen or heard and may not give evidence of inferences which arise from their observations and from that which they have heard.     

McTear v Imperial Tobacco: understanding the role and limitations of expert epidemiological evidence in scientific litigation

The use of epidemiological evidence in litigation presents a range of challenges for both litigants and the courts. Given the complex statistical basis of epidemiology itself, it is possible that the technical and factual constraints associated with such evidence may fail to be properly considered by a trier of fact. The recent Scottish decision in McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [2005] Scots CSOH 69 sets a high standard for the future use of epidemiological evidence and thoroughly evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of epidemiology generally. While epidemiological evidence remains controversial, and cannot in itself prove direct causation (nor causation in the individual), it is likely it will continue to be adduced as indirect evidence of general causation. It is also likely, however, that both the subjective and objective processes involved in epidemiological study design and reporting will be questioned by courts more thoroughly than has historically been the case. Further, failure by a party to adduce primary evidence (ie original data sets and interpretation thereof) of an epidemiological study which it seeks to rely on at trial will most likely undermine the value of adducing such evidence in the first place.     

Development of an instrument for assessing the quality of forensic evidence and expert testimony from three feature-comparison methods: DNA,voice, and fingerprint analysis

In a context of rising violence and long-lasting impunity, in 2008, Mexico's criminal justice system underwent a radical change from an inquisitorial model to an adversarial one, to make it more effective, transparent, and expeditious. The new system tasked judges with publicly determining the admissibility of forensic evidence, as well as assessing its technical quality and probative value—tasks for which they currently receive little to no training. With the aim of contributing to the consolidation of the adversarial model, a comparative framework—in the form of a checklist—of the analysis of fingerprints, DNA samples, and voice recordings was created. To do so, a review of the academic literature, published reports, and guidelines was performed. The collected data were synthesized and submitted to a panel of Mexican judges, who provided feedback on its adequacy. The framework focuses on the steps on which quality assurance of forensic evidence depends, organized in five discrete stages that span from the collection of samples at the scene of a crime to the presentation of evidence at trial, specifying the main technical criteria experts should state to allow a decision maker to examine its accuracy and reliability. Differences and commonalities among the three methods were identified, particularly in terms of how qualitative and quantitative analyses are performed in each. Besides its potential usefulness as an aid for judicial decision-making, the checklist could be a valuable resource for training programs aimed at judges, as well as quality assurance programs.     

法国刑事证据自由原则及其限制

法国刑事证据自由原则,即将证据能力与证据形式作一清楚切割,允许通过任何形式证明犯罪事实。证据形式自由与证据评估自由及法官依据内心确信裁判的伦理责任一道构成自由心证制度体系。法国证据自由原则历经古典时期的萌芽、中世纪的式微、法国大革命的确立及现代发展四个阶段。法国确立证据自由原则的合理依据是刑事诉讼的特殊属性、提高打击犯罪效率的需要及揭示案件真相的要求。合法性及正当性是对证据自由原则的限制。法国通过立法及判例规定了对主要取证手段的限制,如讯问犯罪嫌疑人、搜查与扣押、电信截听及诱惑侦查。程序无效制度保证限制的有效性,通过程序性制裁形成威慑力。正当性的灵活性及程序无效的偶发性使得法国在刑事证据上从加强“限制”重回“自由”,达成新的平衡。重视“实体真实”始终是法国刑事司法最为核心的价值,这不啻为中国当前完善刑事证据制度提供新的启发。     

Information,apprehension, and deterrence: Exploring the limits of police productivity

The capacity of police departments to solve crimes and apprehend offenders is low for many types of crime, particularly crimes of profit. This article reviews a variety of studies of police apprehension and hypothesizes that an important determinant of the ability of the police to apprehend criminals is information. The complete absence of information for many types of crime places fairly clear upper bounds on the ability of the police to effect solutions.To discover whether these boundaries are high or low we analyzed data from the 1973 National Crime Panel about the types and amount of information potentially available to police through victim reports and patrol activities. The evidence suggests that if the police rely on information made readily available to them, they will never do much better than they are doing now. On the other hand, there appears to be more information available to bystanders and passing patrols than currently is being used, which suggests that surveillance strategies and improved police methods for eliciting, recording, and analyzing information supplied by victims and witnesses might increase the probability of solving crimes and making arrests. In light of this we review a few possibly helpful innovations suggested in the literature on police productivity and procedure.