Impacts of increasing volume of digital forensic data: A survey and future research challenges

A major challenge to digital forensic analysis is the ongoing growth in the volume of data seized and presented for analysis. This is a result of the continuing development of storage technology, including increased storage capacity in consumer devices and cloud storage services, and an increase in the number of devices seized per case. Consequently, this has led to increasing backlogs of evidence awaiting analysis, often many months to years, affecting even the largest digital forensic laboratories. Over the preceding years, there has been a variety of research undertaken in relation to the volume challenge. Solutions posed range from data mining, data reduction, increased processing power, distributed processing, artificial intelligence, and other innovative methods. This paper surveys the published research and the proposed solutions. It is concluded that there remains a need for further research with a focus on real world applicability of a method or methods to address the digital forensic data volume challenge.     

我国医疗损害诉讼中专家辅助人制度的现状与建议

2002年《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》规定了民事诉讼中的专家辅助人。2013年修订的《民事诉讼法》中也明确了民事诉讼中的专家辅助人制度。在司法实践中,医疗损害的案件专业性强,并且案件通常都会涉及到医疗损害技术鉴定,这就使得医疗损害案件是民事案件中经常需要专家辅助人的一类案件。本文在剖析了专家辅助人的诉讼地位后,认为我国医疗损害案件中的专家辅助人不同于英美法系中医疗诉讼中的专家证人,也不同于证人、鉴定人和诉讼代理人。在此基础上,探讨了医学专家辅助人在医疗损害案件诉讼的实际应用,并针对现有相关规定中不明确的地方提出了完善医疗损害诉讼中专家辅助人制度的建议。     

The impact of force,time, and rotation on the transfer of ammonium nitrate: A reductionist approach to understanding evidence dynamics

Empirical studies evaluating the conditions under which the transfer of forensic materials occurs can provide contextual information and offer insight into how that material may have been transferred in a given scenario. Here, a reductionist approach was taken to assess the impact of force, time, and rotation on the transfer of an explosive compound. An Instron ElectroPuls E3000 material testing instrument was used to bring porous and non-porous surfaces adulterated with an ammonium nitrate into direct contact with a human skin analogue, controlling for the force of contact, duration of contact, and rotation applied during contact. Quantifiable amounts of ammonium nitrate were recovered from all of the recipient surfaces demonstrating that ammonium nitrate is readily transferred from one surface to another, even when contact occurs for a short duration with a relatively low force. More particulates were transferred from non-porous surfaces onto the human skin analogue, but the amount of ammonium nitrate transferred did not depend upon the force of contact, duration of contact, or the amount of rotation applied. However, when contact occurred and involved rotation, a greater transfer of ammonium nitrate was observed, compared to those contacts occurring without rotation being applied. This approach complements more commonly-used holistic experiments that test multiple interacting variables in a realistic setting by isolating these variables, allowing them to be examined individually. This can be utilised to better understand the individual impact that specific variables have on the transfer of trace evidence in relevant crime reconstruction contexts.     

规范语境下口供补强规则的解释图景

补强规则中的口供是指证明案件主要事实的被告人供述,补强证据是口供外的其他法定证据,与口供没有同源性。借鉴域外的“罪体标准”和“可信性标准”,根据补强对象的不同可将口供补强模式划分为罪体印证补强模式、隐蔽性证据(细节)补强模式和口供事实补强模式。我国不宜采口供事实补强模式,但可结合罪体印证补强模式与隐蔽性证据补强模式,将补强对象范围限定在“结果、犯罪行为和主体同一”三个客观面。三个客观面的补强意味着案件事实认定上的两大效果:一是可判断“犯罪已发生,该人有参与”,以降低假案冤案出现的风险;二是口供的可信性得到补强,所涵盖的主要犯罪事实可推断为真。然而“部分为真则全部为真”的推断逻辑仍不免产生质疑,但口供补强规则是定罪规则,并不排斥仅有口供仍可认定案件的部分事实或情节。当然,为确保口供补强规则适用的可靠性,可从口供合法性以及供述动机等外部保障机制再行审查。     

The Direct and Cross-Examination of Complainants and Defendants in Rape Trials: A Quantitative Analysis of Question Type

This paper is a post-hoc examination of the questioning used in six rape trials. Questions asked in the evidence-in-chief and cross-examination of six complainants and five defendants were coded into different categories. The categories comprised "open", "closed", "leading", "heavily-leading" and "yes/no" questions; questions that are known to increasingly constrain witness responses. Additionally, the frequency of "multiple questions", and questions with "negatives" and "double negatives" were recorded; questions that witnesses have difficulty understanding. Broadly speaking, results showed that questions in both evidence-in-chief and cross-examination were of a constraining nature and allowed witnesses little opportunity to provide complete accounts of alleged events, particularly during cross-examination. Multiple questions were frequent although negatives were comparatively rare, and double negatives did not occur. Similar forms of questioning were used for complainants as for defendants, although more questions were asked of complainants than defendants in cross-examination. The results are discussed in terms of the adverse influence of these questioning strategies on the completeness and accuracy of witnesses' responses, and the similarity in "combativeness" of lawyers in their examination of complainants and defendants.     

析视频监控在刑事诉讼中的作用

新的刑讼法颁布实施后对刑事技术提出了更高的要求,案件如何能破得了、诉得上、判得了、取证成了关键的环节。以往单一的现场痕迹物证显得相当无力,如何将现场痕迹物证与其他证据形成一个完整的证据链、在零口供的情况下将犯罪分子绳之以法是当前刑事技术发挥更大作用的突破口。视频资料是刑诉法规定的证据之一,其中视频监控资料与现场物证相结合就能为证实犯罪,案件审理提供完整的证据链。     

刑事证据视野中的盘查记录

盘查记录有《当场盘问、检查笔录》和《挡获经过（说明）》两种形式,它们在制作主体、形成时间空间、证明内容等方面具有不同特点,之所以如此,源于不同的警务机制。盘查记录的诉讼证据资格不应有任何疑问,这是因为在＂违法—犯罪二元追诉机制＂下,刑事立案前的查缉活动由负责日常警务的警察依法进行,由此获得的证据必然具有合法性。在证明作用方面,盘查记录因其证明内容的综合性、直接性和不可替代性,从而具备了很强的诉讼推进能力。从立法完善角度,应当统一盘查记录的形式,规范其制作方式和记载内容,明确盘查记录的诉讼证据地位。     

专家证言、新科学理论与法官角色——以美国法中的Daubert标准为中心

在专家证言的可采性判断标准上,Daubert标准替代＂普遍接受＂标准成为发展方向。Daubert标准在赋予法官很大的自由裁量的同时,也赋予其艰巨的＂守门人＂角色。Daubert标准将决定权中心从专业界移至法官。Daubert标准对多种因素的弹性考量给新科学证据的可采性提供了机遇和可能,但是一切要取决于法官的自由裁量和＂守门人＂职责的履行。     

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。