RAPD和ISSR分子标记检测大麻的遗传多样性初探

目的利用随机扩增多态性DNA和简单序列重复区间扩增分子标记检测大麻遗传多样性,并探讨其在法医学中的应用价值。方法收集中国4省6个地区的100株大麻叶子样品,采用CTAB法提取基因组DNA,设计选择11个RAPD引物和13个ISSR引物,采用6%中性聚丙烯酰胺凝胶电泳-硝酸银染色法进行检测,根据出现的条带数目和片段大小等分析大麻的多样性。结果 11条RAPD引物扩增出的片段在200bp以上共52条,其中具有多态性的27条;ISSR引物扩增出126条,其中具有多态性的73条;多态性条带比率分别为51.9%和57.9%,其差异不具有统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 RAPD和ISSR两种方法均可用于大麻遗传多样性分析,对检测毒品原植物的种类和来源地具有一定的应用前景。     

犬mtDNA高变区Ⅰ多态性及法医学意义初探

目的对犬毛发mtDNA高变区Ⅰ多态性进行检测,并探讨其在法医学中的应用价值。方法 54只家犬(拉布拉多犬7只、史宾格犬7只、德国牧羊犬6只、罗威纳犬4只、藏獒4只、昆明犬4只、杜伯文犬3只、金毛寻猎犬1只、昆明本地犬18只)。采用复合巢式PCR对54只家犬mtDAN HVRⅠ15803～16114区域进行测序分析。结果 54只家犬在mtDNA HVRⅠ15458～16100区域共检测到643个碱基对信息,共检出分属3大单倍群26个多态点;15个单倍型,频率在1.9%～20.4%之间,其中单倍型A11频率最高;个体识别概率为0.898,平均核苷酸差异和平均核苷酸多样度为7.62±3.61和0.011 9±0.006 3。结论采用本文方法,可检测犬mtDNA HVR-Ⅰ多态性,并可利用其较高的个体识别概率为相关案件侦察提供线索或依据。     

复合扩增20个Y-STR基因座及其法医学的应用

目的建立20个Y-STR基因座的复合扩增体系,进行遗传多态性调查,并评价其法医学应用价值。方法采用五色荧光素标记技术,对20个Y-STR基因座(DYS391、DYS389Ⅰ、DYS390、DYS389Ⅱ、DYS438、DYS460、Y GATA H4、DYS456、DYS439、DYS635、DYS448、DYS393、DYS388、DYS437、DYS19、DYS392、DYS458、DYS447、DYS385 a/b)进行复合扩增和毛细管电泳检测;调查辽宁汉族376名无关男性个体20个Y-STR基因座的遗传多态性数据;并对系统性能进行检测。结果本文方法同时检测20个Y-STR基因座,在376名个体中共检出376种单倍型,基因多样性在0.371 1～0.969 8之间;方法特异性好,分型结果准确稳定,灵敏度达0.062 5ng,实际案例常见生物检材的检验结果良好。结论20个Y-STR基因座复合扩增检测法可以用于实际案例检验,调查所获数据对建立Y-STR数据库和相关研究和应用具有重要意义。     

D11S4463基因座等位基因分型标准物制备及应用

目的制备D11S4463基因座等位基因分型标准物,并调查该基因座在中国汉族人群中的遗传多态性。方法设计引物,用荧光引物PCR扩增和ABI 3130XL遗传分析仪电泳的方法,对中国汉族520份无关个体血斑样本D11S4463基因座遗传多态性进行调查,用分子克隆的方法构建其等位基因分型标准物。结果 D11S4463基因座在中国汉族人群中共检测出9个等位基因,杂合度、匹配概率、个体识别能力、多态性信息含量及非父排除概率分别为0.735、0.089、0.911、0.73、0.485。应用分子克隆的方法成功构建其等位基因分型标准物,按国际法庭血液遗传学学会推荐的原则命名。结论 D11S4463基因座具有较高的遗传多态性,应用分子克隆的方法构建其等位基因分型标准物,在法医科学实践中具有较高的应用价值。     

溯因推理新论——法律论证的视角

溯因推理具有显著的特征：或然性（假设性）、逆向性、非单调性、语用性和创新性.溯因推理研究的新进路在于,其发生了语用学的转向以及语用论证（论辩）的转向.在法律方法（法律适用）和法律逻辑的视域,溯因推理的研究及其运用,长期困固于刑事侦查领域中,对于其在司法判决（审判阶段中）作为一种法律论证方法以解决疑难案件的论证则少有使用.以法律论证为视角,用一例只有被害人陈述为直接证据的强奸案件为例,通过对传统证据链模式的分析,提出印证式证据链模式和排除式证据链模式,建立溯因推理的正向溯因推理模式和反向溯因推理模式,并在案件证据所呈现的情境下建构法律语境,展现溯因推理在具体案件中的法律论证,以期能为我国司法判决实现合理性和正当性,提供一种新的论证模式或方法.     

拘役执法证据问题之探析

近几年,针对拘役执法机构的诉讼和信访案件屡有发生,造成极为负面的社会影响。在当前形势下,无论是从提高教育矫治质量,还是有效控制和化解执法风险上讲,拘役执法机构应当强化证据意识,规范证据体系,严格证据审查与保全。     

非法证据排除规则的可操作性问题探讨

非法证据排除规则是刑事诉讼中重要的证据规则之一。它不仅关系侦查机关取证行为的合法性与司法公正,更关系对犯罪嫌疑人合法权益的保障。我国2012年的刑事诉讼法新刑诉法正式确立了非法证据排除规则,但该规则存在明显的操作性不强的缺陷。遏制"冷暴力"讯问方式、完善侦查人员出庭作证和录音录像制度、建立律师在场权制度对于提高我国非法证据排除规则的可操作性具有十分重要的作用。     

On the power of secondary confession evidence

Research on primary confessions has demonstrated that it is a powerful form of evidence. The goal of the current research was to investigate whether secondary confessions – the suspect confesses to another individual who in turn then reports the confession to the police – could be as persuasive. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants read a murder trial containing an eyewitness identification, a secondary confession, and character testimony, and made midtrial assessments of the evidence. Results indicated that the secondary confession was evaluated as the most incriminating. In Experiment 3, participants read summaries of four criminal trials, each of which contained a primary confession, a secondary confession, eyewitness identification, or none of the above. The two confession conditions produced significantly higher conviction rates. Our findings suggest that secondary confessions are another powerful and potentially dangerous form of evidence.     

Guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies during police interrogations

Abstract

Deception detection has largely failed to investigate guilty and innocent suspects’ strategies. In this study, mock suspects (n=82) were interrogated by police trainees (n=82) who either were or were not trained in the technique to strategically use the evidence (the SUE technique). Analyses revealed that guilty suspects to a higher degree than innocent suspects applied strategies in order to appear truthful. Guilty suspects reported diverse strategies, while innocent suspects reported the strategy to tell the truth like it had happened, indicating a belief in the visibility of innocence. The realism in the suspects’ expectation about how their veracity was judged was largely dependent on the way in which they had been interrogated. The truth-telling suspects who were interrogated according to the SUE technique were optimistic about being judged as truthful; this optimism was warranted as the vast majority of them were classified as truthful. The SUE technique seems to help (a) spotting guilty suspects without them being aware of it and (b) spotting innocent suspects, and they become aware of it. That innocent (but not guilty) suspects can read how the interrogator views them is advantageous for the investigative process.     

Encouraging eyewitnesses to falsely corroborate allegations: effects of rapport-building and incriminating evidence

Building rapport involves developing a harmonious relationship with another person and conveying understanding and acceptance towards that person. Law enforcement officers use rapport-building to help gather information from witnesses. But could rapport-building, in some situations, work to contaminate eyewitness testimony? Research shows that compelling incriminating evidence can lead people to corroborate false accusations made against another person. We investigated whether rapport-building – when combined with either Verbal or Verbal+Visual false evidence – might boost these corroboration rates. Subjects took part in a pseudo-gambling task, in which their counterpart was falsely accused of cheating. Using a 2 (Rapport: Rapport vs. No-rapport) × 2 (Incriminating Evidence: Verbal vs. Verbal+Visual) between-subjects design, we persuaded subjects to corroborate the accusation. We found that both rapport and verbal+visual incriminating evidence increased the compliance rate. Even when the incriminating evidence was only presented verbally, rapport-building subjects were almost three times as likely to corroborate a false accusation compared to subjects who did not undergo rapport-building. Our results suggest that although there is widespread and strong support for using rapport-building in interviews, doing so also has the potential to aggravate the contaminating power of suggestive interview techniques.