妇产科医疗纠纷司法鉴定82例分析

目的研究妇产科医疗纠纷鉴定案件的一般规律及其医疗过失的特点．为法医学鉴定提供理论支持。方法对2002--2008年在华西法医学鉴定中心鉴定的82例妇产科医疗纠纷医疗过失案例进行回顾性分析。结果妇产科医疗纠纷司法鉴定案例逐年增多;发生纠纷的医院以市（区）级与县级医院为多见,发生纠纷的案件中又以分娩和手术者为多见;医疗过失的主要原因为医疗技术缺陷与医疗管理缺陷。结论法医学鉴定时应参照临床医疗规范,考察医师义务履行情况,重点观察有无医疗技术缺陷或管理缺陷。     

美国专家证言的可采性研究——以美国判例与立法的互动为中心

美国对专家证言的可采性经历了弗赖伊判例"普遍接受标准"的限定到《联邦证据规则》对专家证言"关联性"和"有用性"的立法扩张,催生了达伯特判例的"综合观察标准",又因"乔因纳"、"锦湖轮胎"判例对达伯特判例的冲击,引发了涉及科学、技术和经验知识专家证言可采性的多种判断标准的纷争,导致《联邦证据规则》作出了限缩性的修正。判例与立法的互动背后演绎着专家证言可采性的判断权由"科技社群"向"法官"移转,最终法官扮演了专家证言进入法庭"守门人"的角色。美国专家证言可采性判断标准迷失于判例促发立法的互动,为我国法官如何走出依赖原有内部设立鉴定人积习提供了有益的启迪和可借鉴的经验。     

从亲子鉴定的问题看标准化规范化管理的重要性

近年来,亲子鉴定技术在我国发展较快,越来越多的人应用这一鉴定手段维护了自己的合法权益.但我们发现,我国目前对鉴定部门的管理却相对滞后,主要表现为实验室缺乏规范化管理、鉴定机构良莠不齐、技术标准不够完备以及缺乏实验室的质量检测体系等.这些问题如不解决,将不适应司法体制改革的趋势,阻碍鉴定技术科学、公正地为司法实践服务.因此,我们呼吁有关部门对这一问题加以重视、加强协作,使科学鉴定早日走上标准化、规范化管理的道路.     

指纹鉴定标准及鉴定结论概率化研究

指纹鉴定标准是指纹鉴定理论的核心内容之一.指纹鉴定理论和实践中形成的最低特征数量标准、质量—数量标准、面积—质量量化标准、拓扑学方法和标准、形态学方法和标准等均有其局限性.运用统计学理论和贝叶斯定理建立指纹鉴定结论概率化方法和评价标准,不仅在理论和实践上具有必要性和可行性,而且也可以避免指纹鉴定标准之争,使指纹鉴定从经验走向科学.通过统计每枚指纹平均细节特征数量和每类特征的出现率,可以计算出两枚指纹匹配的概率值,进而对概率结论的可靠性作出分析评断.     

专家证据的价值与我国司法鉴定制度的修改

随着科学技术的飞速发展,专家证据在诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。在英美法系国家,专家证据制度在专家证人资格规定上的广泛性和选任上的自由性,使其在适用上具有灵活性和实用性的特点,其详细而完备的专家证据可采性规则,更是司法经验的积累与法官智慧的结晶。英美法系国家的专家证据制度和大陆法系的鉴定制度,在近些年的改革中呈现出共同的趋向,如启动程序的多样化、过错责任的严格化和庭审对抗的强化,这为完善我国司法鉴定制度、准确适用新刑诉法中有关专家辅助人的规定以及充分发挥专家证据的作用开启了新的思路。面对我国司法鉴定中依然相当混乱的鉴定主体问题,构建鉴定人、专家顾问和专家辅助人三位一体的司法鉴定主体格局,或许是一条比较合理可行的出路。     

Perceptions of coercion in interrogation: comparing expert and lay opinions

ABSTRACT

When confessions are entered into evidence in criminal courts, issues of coercion and voluntariness are important and often contested matters. Occasionally, defense attorneys proffer expert witnesses to testify about the coercive pressures of an interrogation and the risk of a false confession. Such testimony is often ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it does not inform the jury beyond its common knowledge. In our effort to test this judicial assumption about common knowledge, we surveyed jury-eligible laypeople (n?=?67) and social scientists specializing in interrogation and confessions (n?=?54) regarding their opinions about the coerciveness of prohibited interrogation tactics, maximization techniques, minimization techniques, and suspect risk factors and compared their ratings with a set of independent t tests. Laypeople gave lower ratings to the coerciveness of all sets of items representing interrogation techniques, and lower ratings to the vulnerabilities associated with suspect risk factors, as compared to social science experts. The disparities between laypeople’s and experts’ perceptions of coercion in interrogations demonstrate that such issues are not fully within the common knowledge of prospective jurors, and suggest the need to provide jurors with expert witness guidance when tasked with evaluating confession evidence.     

外行领导内行?——专业型组织、专家型领导与新冠肺炎疫情防控

专业型组织或知识密集型组织的核心员工都是专业人士,如何对他们进行有效领导一直存在争议。专家型领导理论认为要内行领导内行,但干部管理制度在实际运行时通常导致外行领导内行。本文以新型冠状病毒感染的肺炎疫情防控为案例,对地方卫生健康部门的领导干部履历进行分析,探究如何通过专家型领导来强化科学防控。对于专业型组织而言,应尽可能选派专家型领导,不应过分强调内行领导内行,专业知识和技能只是领导胜任力的维度之一。不同层级和部门的领导干部需要具备不同的能力组合,可以通过加强轮岗和培训来提升他们的全面领导能力。     

Firearm examination: Examiner judgments and computer‐based comparisons

Forensic firearm examination provides the court of law with information about the source of fired cartridge cases. We assessed the validity of source decisions of a computer‐based method and of 73 firearm examiners who compared breechface and firing pin impressions of 48 comparison sets. We also compared the computer‐based method's comparison scores with the examiners' degree‐of‐support judgments and assessed the validity of the latter. The true‐positive rate (sensitivity) and true‐negative rate (specificity) of the computer‐based method (for the comparison of both the breechface and firing pin impressions) were 94.4% and at least 91.7%, respectively. For the examiners, the true‐positive rate was at least 95.3% and the true‐negative rate was at least 86.2%. The validity of the source decisions improved when the evaluations of breechface and firing pin impressions were combined and for the examiners also when the perceived difficulty of the comparison decreased. The examiners were reluctant to provide source decisions for "difficult" comparisons even though their source decisions were mostly correct. The correlation between the computer‐based method's comparison scores and the examiners' degree‐of‐support judgments was low for the same‐source comparisons to negligible for the different‐source comparisons. Combining the outcomes of computer‐based methods with the judgments of examiners could increase the validity of firearm examinations. The examiners' numerical degree‐of‐support judgments for their source decisions were not well‐calibrated and showed clear signs of overconfidence. We suggest studying the merits of performance feedback to calibrate these judgments.     

刑事鉴定存在的问题及其规则研究

关于刑事鉴定的问题已受到人们越来越多的关注。这不仅是因为作为刑事证据之一的鉴定结论对法官的裁判活动 ,心证的形成 ,对当事人双方主张的确认都有着关键有时甚至是决定性的作用 ,更因为我国目前的鉴定制度、鉴定体制存在严重缺陷 ,它已给人们带来比法官裁判不公更令人感到不公正的痛苦。对刑事鉴定有关问题进行研究以及立法就鉴定问题作出必要的完善 ,已是迫在眉睫。     

论鉴定结论冲突

鉴定结论冲突是指鉴定结论之间存在不一致性 ,相互对立排斥或者相互干扰。鉴定结论的冲突从某种程度上影响了诉讼的正常进行 ,但考察其机理 ,又存在着某种必然性 ,是一种多元因素的产物。因此 ,对待鉴定结论冲突应该本着多元考虑的原则 ,冷静对待 ,通过规范法官的心证 ,制定相应的证明责任规则来规范 ,而不能简单的预定效力。同时应该针对其机理 ,采取必要的预防措施 ,避免其对诉讼的不良影响。