“民事证据裁判原则”辨识

证据裁判原则是刑事诉讼法中的一项原则。受刑事诉讼法理论的影响,证据裁判原则也在民事诉讼中被人们所提及。但基于民事诉讼的特定语境——民事纠纷性质、实体法属性、纠纷当事人关系、民事诉讼规范体系的特定性,证据裁判规范的要求就具有了与刑事诉讼法不同的意义和价值。其例外情形、原因及发生机理也有所不同。基于民事案件事实揭示的机理和民事诉讼法强调"谁主张谁举证"的举证要求,在民事诉讼中,证据裁判作为原则的意义和地位远不如刑事诉讼。对于如何认识证据裁判的规范地位和意义,无论是民事证据规范文本的规定,还是人们对例外情形的认识,都存在着一些误识。误识的主要原因是脱离了民事纠纷的特性,按照公法思维而非私法思维去认识证据裁判的意义。文章就此进行了澄清和辨析。在民事诉讼中,对于事实认定而言,更重要的是自由心证原则。     

The forensic examination of structural fires in Victoria,Australia: Decision-making processes and impact on judicial outcomes

There is a body of published research that has evaluated the contribution of forensic science to the criminal justice system, but many disciplines of forensic science remain unexplored in this regard. The aim of this study was to examine the contribution that forensic fire examination services provide to criminal investigations and court processes in arson cases. Forensic fire examination services differ in a number of ways to the disciplines covered in previous research on the impact of forensic evidence on justice outcomes. Forensic fire examinations involve a combination of scene examination and laboratory analyses, and the results can provide critical evidence of whether an incident that has occurred is a criminal offence (i.e. whether a fire has occurred as the result of an act of arson). Forensic fire examination is also a discipline that has faced challenges and undergone development in recent decades regarding its scientific basis and the issue of contextual bias. In this study, data were collated for 273 structural fires that were examined by the forensic fire services in Victoria, Australia. In this jurisdiction, scene and laboratory forensic services are delivered within short time frames with a focus on providing impartial scientific and investigative services to assist criminal investigations conducted by police. The current dataset was highly skewed in terms of criminal justice outcomes and was not suitable for conducting the planned statistical analyses. Nonetheless, the pattern of findings obtained suggested that the inclusion of forensic evidence which supported the prosecution of arson may be associated with an increased likelihood of suspects being charged and defendants found guilty. Examination of the decision-making process of the forensic fire examiners has provided insight into the variety of evidence that is considered by forensic experts in reaching the important conclusion about the origin and cause of structural fires.     

Relatively Permanent Pigmented or Vascular Skin Marks for Identification: A Pilot Reliability Study

In child sexual exploitation offenses, the collected evidence images often show the skin of nonfacial body parts of the criminals and victims. For identification in this scenario, “relatively permanent pigmented or vascular skin marks,” abbreviated as RPPVSM, were recently introduced as the basis for a novel biometric trait. This pilot study evaluated the interexaminer variability of RPPVSM identification. Four dermatology physicians were recruited to examine RPPVSM from 75 skin images collected from a total of 51 Caucasian and Asian subjects. The images were separated into 50 reference (“suspect”) images and 25 evaluation (“evidence”) images. The examiners were asked to perform identification by annotating RPPVSM in each of the 25 evaluation images and matching them with the reference images. The rate of misidentification was 0% while the mean rate at which examiners failed to find a match was 6%, indicating the potential of dermatology physicians performing the role of RPPVSM examiners.     

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.     

Bloodstain pattern analysis & Bayes: A case report

The findings from a bloodstain pattern analysis (BPA) may assist in formulating or falsifying scenarios that are considered in the investigative stages of a criminal investigation. When a case proceeds to trial the bloodstain pattern expert may be asked about the relevance of their findings given scenarios that are proposed by the prosecution and defense counsel. Such opinions provided by an expert are highly relevant to police investigation or legal proceedings, but the reasoning behind the opinion or implicit assumptions made by the expert may not be transparent.A proper framework for the evaluation of forensic findings has been developed since the late twentieth century, based on the hierarchy of propositions, Bayesian reasoning and a model for case assessment and interpretation. This framework, when implemented in casework, mitigates some of the risks of cognitive biases, and makes the reasoning and scientific basis for the opinion transparent. This framework is broadly used across forensic science disciplines. In this paper we describe its application to the field of BPA using a case example from the Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI).     

关于传闻证据规则可采性的思考

传闻证据规则是英美法系证据法中一个十分重要的证据规则。它是采取刑事诉讼对抗制模式和陪审团制度的产物,随着司法实践的不断复杂化,传闻证据规则例外的情形也变得繁多和复杂,传闻证据规则运用的空间变小了。引进传闻证据规则意味着否定我国的传来证据规则,同时,英美的传闻证据规则与我国的刑事诉讼程序背号和诉讼模式不相适应,所以,我国不宜引进英美法系的传闻证据规则。     

基于网络色情犯罪论坛数据库的取证系统研究

随着信息技术的不断发展,网络色情犯罪越来越严重,如何获取与计算机犯罪相关的电子证据,将犯罪分子绳之以法,已是迫切需要解决的问题。     

利用PCR生物技术破解喀纳斯猜想

PCR技术是依赖于靶DNA序列侧翼上所结合的两个寡核苷酸引物经体外酶促合成特异DNA片段的方法。PCR循环包括DNA热变性、引物退火、链的延伸三个步骤。PCR技术是陈旧、污染、腐败、降解和微量物证检验的重要手段之一,在破解喀纳斯猜想中作出了权威解释。     

非法证据排除规则的国内外比较研究

由于法律文化传统等的不同以及特定时期控制犯罪与保障人权的需要,不同国家之间以及同一国家在不同时期有关这一问题的诉讼理论和具体对策往往存在着许多差异。不过,随着人类社会进步和对刑事诉讼规律认识的提高,各国对违法取证的危害性的认识也日趋深刻,并在一些原则问题上达成了共识。     

对法定证据制度认识误区的反思

传统理论对法定证据制度存有较大的误解。但事实上,法定证据制度的认识论基础应是原始经验主义;裁判者对之也并非完全机械地操作,而是具有一定程度的灵活性。不管制度如何设计,裁判者在进行证据评价时其经验要占据重要的位置。为保证裁判者对案件事实有一个客观公正的评价并进而作出具有合理性和可接受性的结论,不但要重视审判经验的提炼和推广工作,还要继续完善制度建设,加强规范性制约。