医疗物品致人损害责任的举证制度研究

医疗物品致人损害责任是医疗损害责任的一种特殊形式,同时又具有产品责任的某些特点。对外．药品、消毒药剂和医疗器械致损的归责原则是无过错原则;而血液致损的归责原则是过错原则。对内。医疗机构承担的是无过错责任．因此在无过错时有权向最终的责任主体追偿。医疗物品责任实行的是“谁主张。谁举证”的归责原则,因此受损害方承担了证明医疗损害责任三个构成要件的证明责任;而医疗产品生产商和医疗机构都可以通过举证《产品质量法》规定的法定情况的存在而免责,但医疗机构不得对“未投入流通”这一情况而免责．血液提供机构承担了证明自己不存在过错的举证责任。为了更好的平衡举证责任和举证能力．我国应该对与证据价值密切相关的两个制度证据保全和医疗鉴定予以完善。     

从相互协助到相互承认——欧盟刑事取证立法变迁探析

欧盟刑事取证立法建立在两个不同原则上,一是传统的相互协助基础上的立法,一是1999年坦佩雷会议后,相互承认基础上的立法;这两种立法在欧盟范围内并存。从未来发展看,相互承认基础上的立法将逐步取代相互协助基础上的立法。欧盟理事会2008年12月通过的《欧盟证据令》是欧盟在相互承认基础上取代原有刑事取证立法的第一步,对原有立法进行了制度性革新。欧盟刑事取证立法在取得显著进步的同时,在相互承认原则和公民基本权利保障等方面也面临着诸多挑战。     

关于证据科学的思考

本文探讨了证据科学的要素。本文认为,证据科学必须是多学科的,或者整合性的。如果我们分享彼此基于证据的推理方面的思想和经验,我们都会受益于稳固确立的证据科学。     

俄罗斯联邦刑事诉讼中犯罪人有罪证明中的相关问题

《俄罗斯联邦刑事诉讼法典》第15条明确了辩论制原则,但其存在一定的负面效果。该法第86条的证据收集规则使有悖于指控倾向的事实材料、非国家机关性质诉讼参与人取得的鉴定结论及专家结论一律无法归入案卷。这打破了审前诉讼阶段的控辩平等,违背了刑诉法,最终导致了案件客观真相难以查明的后果。     

单位证明的误区——论刑事诉讼中的单位作证中如何避免滥用证人权利

单位作证是司法实践中的一种普遍现象,其中尤以单位证明的使用最为广泛和富有争议。本文阐述单位证明作为诉讼证据使用的现状,并对单位证明作合法性分析,解读因单位证明的使用导致单位滥用证人权利现象的产生及成因,提出如何规范和引导单位作证行为,限制和约束单位滥用证人权利,以解决单位作证中遇到的理论和实际问题。     

关于证据科学的思考

本文探讨了证据科学的要素。本文认为,证据科学必须是多学科的,或者整合性的。如果我们分享彼此基于证据的推理方面的思想和经验,我们都会受益于稳固确立的证据科学。     

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.     

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.