How do forensic scientists learn to become competent in casework reporting in practice: a theoretical and empirical approach

In their day-to-day work, carrying out complex tasks, forensic scientists use a combination of explicit, codified standard operating procedures and tacit knowledge developed through their ongoing practice. We show that tacit knowledge is an integral part of the activities of expert forensic science practitioners who continually add to their knowledge repertoire by engaging other scientists through communities of practice. We wish to shed fresh light on the gaining of tacit knowledge by forensic scientists during their apprentice formative years, termed as legitimate peripheral participation. In quantifying tacit knowledge exchanges, we use social network analysis, a methodology for the analysis of social structures, to map relational knowledge flows between forensic scientists within communities of practice at the Forensic Science Laboratory, Ireland. This paper sheds light on the importance of tacit knowledge within the training regime of forensic scientists and its recognition as equal to the part played by explicit knowledge.     

司法鉴定结论使用中存在问题及解决途径——兼论我国诉讼专家辅助人制度的建构和完善

鉴定结论是司法工作中经常使用的重要证据形式,但在使用中存在诸多问题。这主要是因为当事人及其司法人员缺乏相应的科学技术知识和专门知识不能对鉴定结论进行科学评判。通过建构和完善我国诉讼中的专家辅助人制度就可以从根本上解决鉴定结论运用中存在的那些问题。     

骨盆骨折伤残重新鉴定65例分析

目的 研究有争议的交通事故受伤人员骨盆骨折伤残等级评定案例,分析其在初次鉴定中暴露出来的问题,探讨如何正确理解与把握骨盆骨折的鉴定条款,建立科学的判定标准。方法 收集上海市司法鉴定中心2006—2013年道路交通事故致骨盆骨折伤残等级重新鉴定案例65例,对初次鉴定和重新鉴定的资料进行分析比较。结果 鉴定时机不当,鉴定材料收集不全面,鉴定人对骨盆骨折条款的理解有误及其他一系列问题是重新鉴定意见改变伤残等级的主要原因。结论 针对上述问题,应该从提高鉴定人专业技能,建立统一判定标准等方面来提高此类案件的鉴定质量。     

司法鉴定结论使用中存在问题及解决途径——兼论我国诉讼专家辅助人制度的建构和完善

鉴定结论是司法工作中经常使用的重要证据形式,但在使用中存在诸多问题。这主要是因为当事人及其司法人员缺乏相应的科学技术知识和专门知识不能对鉴定结论进行科学评判。通过建构和完善我国诉讼中的专家辅助人制度就可以从根本上解决鉴定结论运用中存在的那些问题。     

Forensic pathology then and now. Retrospect and reflections

The past half-century has witnessed significant progress and multiple, meaningful changes in the day-to-day practice of forensic pathology as it has in all other branches of laboratory and clinical medicine. Associated with the welcome advancing "scientific" aspects of our work have been gratifying changes in the professional status of our much misunderstood area of medical activity, the latter most vividly and convincingly represented by American Board of Pathology certification in Forensic Pathology and the appearance of such growing, vital, national professional organizations as the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and our National Association of Medical Examiners and the creation of such highly respected periodicals as the Journal of Forensic Sciences and our American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology. Objective assessment of the foregoing accomplishments leads to the inescapable conclusion that forensic pathology has emerged from its previous role as the "invisible profession" and become a respected and productive branch of laboratory medicine.     

失范鉴定人将面临的三份监管“黑名单”

鉴定意见是重要的诉讼证据,是法官发现事实真相的得力助手,但失范鉴定意见则起着相反的作用。近期全国人大常委会、最高人民法院、国家市场监督管理总局分别发文,对鉴定主体展开信用管理,对于存在失信失范行为的鉴定主体,纳入黑名单进行管理,需引起鉴定机构和鉴定人的重视。     

论法官直接认知与司法鉴定的界分

法官直接认知是法官直接对本案适用的法律、相关待证事实无需当事人举证证明或者在当事人举证已经达至证明标准时,直接加以确认形成内心确信的情形。司法鉴定是请求专家对案件事实或者证据事实出具相关意见的一种辅助证明活动。在我国的司法实践中存在着逃避法官直接认知而滥用司法鉴定的不良现象,应当在理论、立法和司法上准确理解法官直接认知和司法鉴定的功能与范围,二者不可简单替代,尤其不能以司法鉴定代替法官直接认知。     

法医学鉴定强制性标准的现状、问题和对策——以《强制性国家标准管理办法》为视角

法医学鉴定意见是重要的诉讼证据,鉴定标准尤其是强制性标准直接影响鉴定意见的科学性、公正性和权威性。当前我国法医学鉴定的强制性国家标准仅有3项,推荐性国家标准及行业标准489项。法医学标准数量有限,尤其强制性标准奇缺,已经影响到我国法医学鉴定实践和学科发展。《强制性国家标准管理办法》旨在加强和推进我国强制性国家标准的管理和发展。笔者建议,以该办法的实施为契机,相关行政管理部门应当发挥更多作用,采取有力措施推进法医学鉴定强制性国家标准的制定,进一步补充、修改、完善法医学鉴定行业标准,强化法医学鉴定强制性国家标准的执行。     

以审判为中心的庭审模式对法医出庭质证的挑战

以审判为中心的庭审模式是当今诉讼改革的主要方向,案件庭审实质化是诉讼改革的主要目标,在此背景下,法医鉴定人出庭质证将会实质化、常态化。为此,最高人民法院等部门出台了保障鉴定人出庭的相关规定、规则。法医鉴定意见质证实质化要求法医鉴定人在出庭时履行相关义务:尊重法庭、如实回答提问、释明鉴定意见。当前法医参加庭审质证中存在法医鉴定人出庭率低、鉴定意见的法律性质不明确、鉴定人出庭的具体要求不明确、与包括专家辅助人在内的其他专家证据形式的冲突等问题。为此,笔者向法医鉴定人提出三点建议:不断学习,提升专业技能;加强修炼,提高法律知识;注重实践,强化表达能力。     

论司法鉴定机构的公益性建设

从属性上分析。司法鉴定应当是政府着力提供的一种公共服务,具有公益属性,作为司法鉴定依托的司法鉴定机构应该以公益性建设为主导的价值方向。为侦查服务的侦查机关内设鉴定机构具有天然的公益性,但实践中出现的一系列问题也使其公益性出现偏位．从而引起人们对其公益性的质疑。在全国人大常委会《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》指引下的司法鉴定机构建设过程中,应该避免社会司法鉴定机构走向市场化的竞争域,从而保障鉴定意见这一法定证据的公正性、客观性和中立性。从现行鉴定体制出发,以建设国立司法鉴定机构为向导,使司法鉴定机构走向公益性的良性发展道路．是所要探讨的一个核心问题。国家级司法鉴定机构的公布,标志着我国司法鉴定机构公益性建设的开端．以此为契机,应认真思考公益性建设的进路。     

Expert Disagreement in Bitemark Casework*

Abstract: Bitemark cases continue to raise controversy due to the degree of expert disagreement which is frequently seen. Using a case mix of 49 bitemark cases from 2000 to 2007 each injury was independently assessed for its forensic significance using a previously described bitemark severity scale. Following the assessment, the mean value for the bites was categorized according to the crime type, the degree of expert agreement, and the judicial outcome. Results suggest that bitemarks found in child abuse cases have statistically significantly lower forensic value than those in other crime types, that bites where there is mutual agreement between experts will have higher forensic value than those where there is disagreement at trial, and that cases in which DNA has provided an exoneration will demonstrate similar quality to those where a conviction was secured. Forensic odontologists should carefully assess bitemark evidence and ensure that it meets certain minimums in relation to the presence of class and unique features before undertaking an analysis.     

A review of the historical use and criticisms of gait analysis evidence

The use of gait analysis is a well-established facet of practice for many professions and a fundamental aspect of clinical practice. In recent times, gait analysis evidence has emerged as a new area of forensic practice. As its use has continued to spread and develop, the area of work has come under close scrutiny and subsequent criticism. The purpose of this paper is to examine the historical use of gait analysis evidence and consider the criticisms of this work. Through the use of the historical records of cases within the public domain it has been determined that gait analysis as evidence was first presented in court over 175?years ago, although it has only been utilized by experts in more recent times. The quality of analysis underpinning such evidence has been variable, and has been undertaken by both non-expert and expert witnesses. The work undertaken by expert witnesses appears to have been both non-scientific and scientific in nature, though there is limited reporting of cases involving scientific approaches. Given the variation in the quality of the methodologies utilized, there is the potential for confusion within the courts, where it may be difficult for the judge or jury to determine the appropriate weight that can be attributed to the evidence. It is concluded that future publications should explore the scientific basis of forensic gait analysis to evaluate standards, reliability and validity, as well as reporting the methodologies utilized in relevant cases in the field. It is also recommended that courts consider in greater depth an expert's theoretical approach and experience prior to admitting their evidence. The publication of ‘Forensic gait analysis: a primer for courts’, although limited in some aspects of its consideration of practice, is a welcome addition to the information available for guidance.     

Organization and methodological activities of Russian Center for Forensic Medical Expert Evaluations Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation

Analyzes the organization and methodological activities of Russian Center for Forensic Medical Expert Evaluations in 1996-1998. Informs about the federal law on forensic medical expert evaluations and norm-setting acts aimed at improvement of forensic medical service in the Russian Federation, which have been developed at the Center. Offers recommendations on improving the quality control of expert evaluations at territorial centers and continuous education of experts. Formulates the main tasks of the Center fort the nearest future.     

Peer‐Reviewed Forensic Consultation in Practice: Multidisciplinary Oversight in Common Expertise

The fallibility of forensic science consultation is an ongoing and major justice concern. Prospective peer‐reviewed forensic consultation has over 10 years of application in American criminal and civil courts, adapting from the traditional oversight of teaching hospitals, rules of evidence and discovery, conventions of testimony of expert witnesses, and attorneys' overall trial strategy. In systematizing heightened oversight, this process ensures greater accountability in forensic science consultation. The integration of peer reviewers' complementary expertise and experience enhances the sophistication and overall quality of assessment. Forensic examination frequently involves the interface of different specialties. Multidisciplinary peer review augments expert proficiency with that of professional peers having different vantage points from relevant scientific disciplines. This approach ensures greater sophistication of a case inquiry, built‐in accountability, and streamlined processes when multiple experts are necessitated. Here, the authors present examples of several cases and the primary and secondary benefits of this collaborative, rigorous, cross‐disciplinary exercise.     

医疗损害鉴定主体改革刍议

医疗损害鉴定主体,包括鉴定机构及鉴定人,是医疗损害鉴定制度改革的起点。医疗事故鉴定模式中的专家组并不是鉴定主体．但其合议制的实质对鉴定结论的科学性具有重要作用,应予保留。应改革鉴定结论形成机制,允许出具多样化的鉴定结论。医疗损害鉴定制度的改革应采取司法行政部门主管、司法鉴定机构组织鉴定工作、医学会推荐鉴定人的模式。由于医学的专业性极强,鉴定人应当来自于现任专职医务人员。在保证鉴定人中立性、公正性的同时,要重视保证医务人员参与鉴定工作的积极性。     

The future of forensic and crime scene science. Part II. A UK perspective on forensic science education

This paper builds on the views presented by the author at 'The Future of Forensic and Crime Scene Science Conference'. Forensic science has become an increasingly prominent area of science within the last 10 years. This increasing prominence together with popularity in the subject has seen the number of undergraduate students studying forensic science related courses at UK Universities increase rapidly in just 5 years and there are no short term signs of this trend reducing. In 2005, there were 450 courses with forensic in the title offered by higher education institutes. Although the forensic community has expressed its concern that job prospects for these students wishing to pursue careers as forensic scientists will be limited numbers of students undertaking science courses have still increased. The increase in students studying forensic science comes in an era of decreasing science numbers in higher education with the potential to produce high calibre science graduates with sought after skills in critical thinking, analysis, interpretation and communication. Technology has continued to advance at a similar pace providing those responsible for managing crime with a need and opportunity to identify and predict new and future applications of science and technology; not just in reducing and detecting crime but also in predicting how technology will be used by criminals in the future. There is therefore a need for forensic science users, providers and educators to identify the knowledge and skills required by forensic scientists and crime investigators of the future to ensure that technology continues to be used and applied to its full advantage. This provides universities an opportunity to contribute to the development of both the practice and practitioners of forensic science. This paper outlines the current issues facing universities in relation to forensic science and identifies their future role in providing high quality relevant courses for future forensic practitioners; developing current forensic practitioners through their participation in applied research, short courses, conferences and qualifications linked to professional practice; and supporting and developing the practice of forensic and crime scene science, through the identification, engagement and dissemination of pure and applied research.     

Evaluating expertise in forensic anthropology

The medicolegal system relies on the ability of experts and non-experts alike to make judgments about expertise and use those judgments to reach consequential decisions. Given the lack of standard criteria, mandatory certification, or licensure for establishing expertise required to practice forensic anthropology and testify as an expert witness, we sought to understand how individuals assess and identify expertise in forensic anthropology by using a social science tool called the Imitation Game. This tool assesses immersion in a specific area of study via discourse, with the premise that some individuals lacking expertise themselves imitate or attempt to pass as experts. For this project we recruited volunteers with varying expertise in forensic anthropology to participate in interviews which asked questions about the practice and structure of the discipline. Those interviews were transcribed, anonymized, and evaluated by other recruited individuals with varying expertise in forensic anthropology. Results found that judges who were experts in forensic anthropology performed better than non-expert judges in determining who was not an expert in forensic anthropology based on their anonymized responses; however, nearly half of the non-experts were still able to pass as experts in forensic anthropology. The difficulties in assessing expertise based on discourse interactions demonstrates the value and need for well-defined credentials and mandatory certification to practice forensic anthropology. This study demonstrates that accurately identifying expertise in forensic anthropology may be challenging for both experts and non-experts, especially when relying solely on interactional expertise rather than formal assessments of competency which directly elucidate contributory expertise.     

迈向“过程导向信任”的刑事死因鉴定争议解决机制

中国当今刑事鉴定争议频发。其中当事人与办案机关鉴定冲突最剧烈、不满手段最多样,且其社会影响最大者,目前主要聚集在部分死因鉴定领域。该类鉴定争议既滋生过度重复鉴定,更促使部分当事人上访、闹事,一度还以此衍生出暴力性群体事件。死因鉴定争议的发生,主要源于影响鉴定意见可信性的一系列因素,而非仅因为、甚或主要基于鉴定意见的客观可靠性。因此,为重塑中国刑事死因鉴定的公信力,必须走向从实践出发的法律研究与制度建构立场,以回应办案部门创建、并亟须理论提炼与立法改良的“过程导向信任”的鉴定争议解决机制。其关键措施,是通过死因鉴定程序的开放性与当事人双方（包括其聘请的法医专家）的充分参与性,从而实现鉴定意见的可信性或当事人可接受性;并以此领域的鉴定争议解决为突破口,进行鉴定制度改革,以提升中国整个刑事司法鉴定的公信力与可信性。     

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.     

国外法医临床学发展史

法医临床学是法医学的重要分支学科,正处于蓬勃发展阶段。研究法医临床学的发展史,对明确其定义和实践范畴,维护司法公正,具有重要意义。本文将从“简介、历史溯源、18世纪之后的法医临床学发展、现代法医临床学、世界法医临床学司法实践现状和结语”六个部分介绍法医临床学在国外,尤其是英国的发展历史,促进我国法医临床学的学科建设和发展。