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.     

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.     

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。     

论法医学鉴定意见与案情的关系

本文从三个方面进行论述,即法医学鉴定意见的案情趋向性;法医学鉴定中的案情资料价值;法医学鉴定的科学局限性。从而说明法医学鉴定在很多情况下依赖案情,对法医学鉴定意见进行审查判断十分必要。     

论在医疗纠纷诉讼中推行专家辅助人制度

医学专家意见在医疗纠纷诉讼中占有重要地位,在不同法系国家分别以鉴定和专家证言的形式出现在法庭诉讼中。目前,我国已形成了以医疗事故技术鉴定和医疗过错鉴定为主体的医疗专业技术鉴定体制,但当前面临着诸多困境。从专家证据制度改革和医学专家意见形成特点等层面分析,专家辅助人制度与普通法系国家专家证人制度类似,其和鉴定制度的有机结合可以在医疗纠纷诉讼领域构建更为理想的专家证据制度;有助于最大限度地使法律真实靠近客观真实。但过于强大的医疗专业技术鉴定制度对专家辅助人制度具有明显的压制作用,因此需适当限制鉴定制度,大力推行专家辅助人制度,同时应总结相关国家经验教训,防止专家辅助人制度产生不应有的负面效应。     

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.     

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。     

论在医疗纠纷诉讼中推行专家辅助人制度

医学专家意见在医疗纠纷诉讼中占有重要地位，在不同法系国家分别以鉴定和专家证言的形式出现在法庭诉讼中。目前，我国已形成了以医疗事故技术鉴定和医疗过错鉴定为主体的医疗专业技术鉴定体制，但当前面临着诸多困境。从专家证据制度改革和医学专家意见形成特点等层面分析，专家辅助人制度与普通法系国家专家证人制度类似．其和鉴定制度的有机结合可以在医疗纠纷诉讼领域构建更为理想的专家证据制度：有助于最大限度地使法律真实靠近客观真实。但过于强大的医疗专业技术鉴定制度对专家辅助人制度具有明显的压制作用．因此需适当限制鉴定制度，大力推行专家辅助人制度，同时应总结相关国家经验教训。防止专家辅助人制度产生不应有的负面效应。     

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。     

《加强美国法庭科学之路》的反响和启示

美国科学院国家研究顾问委员会2009年2月发布的《加强美国法庭科学之路》明确指出目前美国法庭科学领域的很多学科存在严重缺陷,不能很好地为司法审判服务。本文通过对该报告出台背景和一年多来的争论和反响进行分析,对其披露的问题和提出的建议进行了详细解读。目前其主要争议存在于设立独立的国家法庭科学研究院和隔离法庭科学机构与执法...     

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。     

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.     

Expert Testimony Regarding Child Witnesses: Does It Sensitize Jurors to Forensic Interview Quality?

Does expert testimony on forensic interviews with children help adults distinguish between poorly conducted and well-conducted interviews? This study evaluates the effects of social framework expert testimony regarding child witnesses in a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse. A 2 (Expert Testimony: present or absent) × 3 (Child Forensic Interview Quality: poor, typical, or good) × 2 (Child’s Age: 4- or 10-year-old) factorial design was used to examine whether expert testimony is prejudicial or beneficial to jurors (N = 463). The results revealed that, without expert testimony, mock jurors did not consider the forensic interview quality when reaching a verdict. However, with expert testimony, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts if the interview quality was good versus poor. Further expert testimony increased mock jurors’ knowledge about child witnesses. These findings suggest that expert testimony related to the impact of interview techniques on the reliability of children’s reports may assist fact-finders in evaluating child abuse cases.     

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.     

谁是司法鉴定的“守门人”？——《关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》实施五周年成效评析

本文从司法鉴定机构设置、司法鉴定活动启动以及司法鉴定意见审查三个方面论述了司法鉴定“守门人”问题。通过对两大法系国家各自司法鉴定制度的分析,梳理司法鉴定“守门人”的三道防线。同时有针对性地比较和讨论了我国司法鉴定制度缺陷,明确司法鉴定制度改革不能以牺牲鉴定意见“守门人”功能为代价。指出建立国家所属的具有公益性、中立性的司法鉴定机构是发展的必由之路。     

The Impact of Negative Forensic Evidence on Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of a Trial of Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault

Legal concerns with regard to the adverse impact of a negative toxicological screening for date-rape drugs in a case of drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) were the focus of a recent Canadian case (R. v. Alouache, 2003). To assess the impact of a negative forensic report, as well as the impact of expert testimony explaining the many factors that may contribute to a negative outcome, participants (N=171) received a written trial stimulus in which the forensic evidence (negative report, negative report plus expert testimony, no negative report and no expert testimony control) and the complainant's beverage consumption (alcohol, cola) were systematically varied. Results indicate that a negative finding in the absence of expert testimony produced greater verdict leniency and more favourable evaluations of the defendant's case. In contrast, no differences were found between the case in which the expert testified and a case in which the negative report and expert testimony were omitted.

---

     

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。     

论非典型鉴定意见的法律效力——“鉴定咨询意见”、“鉴定检验报告”、“技术证据审核意见”的证据能力问题亟需依法统一认识

“两种意见”和“两种检验报告”的性质和作用问题，在司法鉴定和司法活动中是经常引起争议的理论和实践问题。本文针对当前的争议．对每个问题提出了自己的观点和解决争议的主张。认为“鉴定专家咨询委员会”出具的“鉴定咨询意见”不是鉴定意见．不能作为定案的根据，只能作为侦查、审查起诉、审判的参考。并论证了其中的多方面原因;主张“鉴定检验报告”应当区分法定与法外两种性质，分别属于法定鉴定意见证据和仅供审判部门参考的非法定证据．并提出了对两种不同性质“检验报告”的使用评断原则;认为人民检察院、人民法院的“科技证据审核活动”．属于司法机关对鉴定意见的内部咨询活动，审查的范围仅限于四个方面．技审人员和机构无权对司法鉴定意见进行否定或肯定．只能对四方面的问题提出“审查建议”,“技术审查意见”只能作为检察、审判机关审查起诉和审判的内部参考．不能栽入起诉书和裁判文书。     

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.