Sampling of explosive residues: The use of a gelatine-based medium for the recovery of ammonium nitrate

Forensic scientists must be able to recover traces of any original explosive materials not consumed in the detonation, in a careful controlled manner to aid a crime reconstruction. In current sampling techniques, the collection efficiency of post-blast residue is highly variable and often dependent on the swabbing materials and solvent systems used. To address these method limitations, this study presents a gelatine-based sampling medium and assesses its capabilities for the collection of ammonium nitrate. Common surfaces were spotted with a known concentration of ammonium nitrate, the unset gel applied, allowed to set, and then peeled from the surface. The gel was dissolved, and solid phase extraction employed to isolate the target explosive compound and remove the constituents of the gel. The eluate was concentrated and subsequently analysed and quantified. Overall, the gel formulation was able to collect ammonium nitrate from all of the test surfaces, with recoveries ranging from 0.1% to 61.7%. This study presents a gelatine-based formulation that has the potential to become a valuable asset in the forensic tool kit for the collection of explosive traces. A key attribute of the gel is that it offers an alternative recovery tool to conventional swabbing and solvent extraction methods.     

司法鉴定行政与司法视角的边界——民诉证据司法解释鉴定内容的思考

2019年12月26日,最高人民法院发布了《关于修改〈关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定〉的决定》,备受司法界关注。其中,涉及司法鉴定的条款达24条之多,笔者结合《司法鉴定程序通则》,对相关内容予以了梳理与比较,揭示了民事证据规定给司法鉴定带来的变化与问题。民事证据规定重点规制了司法鉴定启动、受理、鉴定人出庭接受质询、鉴定人诚信承诺、鉴定人权利保障,鉴定人的出庭义务、遵守鉴定时限的义务,以及围绕鉴定资料的真实性、合法性方面的规定,以期保障鉴定质量。与此同时,民事证据规定也带来了管理上的边界之争的问题,包括司法鉴定行政管理部门与法院之间、法院与司法鉴定机构之间,以及法官与鉴定人之间权利义务的边界之争与之推,司法鉴定呈现多头管理已见端倪。本研究直面司法鉴定发展中的问题,建议尽早启动司法鉴定立法工作,强化鉴定意见的法庭质证,明确虚假鉴定的认定标准,梳理鉴定多头管理乱象等等,希望可以对司法鉴定制度的改革有所裨益。     

民事诉讼预决事实效力理论基础之选择

关于预决事实在后诉中的效力理论基础,主要有三种:既判力、争点效和事实证明效理论。我国应当采纳哪种理论,学术界分歧严重。《关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》《关于适用〈中华人民共和国民事诉讼法〉若干问题的解释》《关于审理环境民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》《关于审理消费民事公益诉讼案件适用法律若干问题的解释》充分反映出制定主体在上述三种理论间摇摆不定、难以抉择的心态。鉴于三种理论各有所长、各有所短,且无法将各种理论优点集于一身,综合权衡,我国未来立法还是应采纳争点效理论为佳。     

证据法的法域范围

法庭科学家和证据法学者所处的是两个不同的世界,就像英国和美国一样,由一种共通的语言划分开来。虽然在一些重要方面彼此关联,但法庭科学和证据法学作为两个独立的学科,有着各自独特的构造和演进,关注不同的问题并运用各具特色的认识论。因此,这两个学科之间存在着自说自话的重大风险。该风险的迹象体现在了法庭科学家与证据法学者之间时常沟通不畅。“证据法”的概念对于法庭科学和证据法学而言均至关重要,且在这两个学科中均被高频地运用。本文通过聚焦“证据法的法域范围”之基础概念讨论,希望造成该学科间冲突的个别成因能够明朗化,并诚挚地期盼这样做能有利于法庭科学与证据法学学科之间更有效地交流。     

Decision Making and Justice

This article considers how judges can improve decision making, especially in cases that involve children in the family court. It looks specifically at improvements that are being implemented in England and Wales following a major review of family justice in 2011. All judges need to be well‐trained and well‐informed if they are to make the best‐quality decisions they can. Three principles underpin the approach to improving judicial decision making, which must be systematic, evidence based, and tested, and the evidence that informs judicial decisions must be robust. Collaboration among professionals in the development of good practice, its dissemination, and its application should be the acknowledged goal, and it should involve the views and perceptions of the young people and families involved.     

证据的界说——以字典释义为中心的历史语义学分析

通过把“证据”界定为一个语词，追溯“证据”一词在中西普通辞典中的释义历史，分析得出证据语词在中西语言中兼有动词与名词的双重属性，各以语族而非单一语词形式出现。中文强调了指称行为（证明活动），而西文更注重指称性质（明显性）。迄至当代，中西证据语词在指称外在可见的事物上基本达成一致。由之分析证据释义形式，可知因语词定义与真实定义的区别，证据的情境性、释义历史性等特点，证据只有在证据活动中才能被认识，从而证据定义问题在很大程度上被转化为一个证据（符号）如何使用（指称与表达）的问题，人对证据概念的认知程度将限定着证据概念的呈现程度。     

The Protection of Confidentiality in Australian Family Law

This paper identifies and discusses the legislative provisions which protect confidentiality in family law proceedings in Australia. The purpose of discussing these protections is two‐fold: firstly, to identify the scope and operation of these protections for Australian legal practitioners; secondly, to allow comparison of Australian protections to those offered in other jurisdictions. This paper will consider duties of confidentiality and evidential privileges in the context of settlement negotiation, mediation, arbitration, lawyer‐client relationships and medical, counselling and other therapeutic relationships. The rationale for the protection of confidentiality in some of these relationships and circumstances, but not in others, will also be considered in an attempt to understand why it is so.     

Moving from Evidence‐Light to Evidence‐Based Practice: Randomized Control Trials in Family Law

In a resource‐constrained environment, such as the access to justice field, it is critical to develop better knowledge about effective and efficient service delivery. This article discusses the need for more rigorous evaluation and research in the field, both in order to better reach individuals with legal needs and to maximize court resources. Various evaluation methodologies will be explained, along with examples of current randomized control trial studies being conducted at the Harvard Access to Justice Lab.     

Methods for detecting manipulations in 3D scan data

While interest in using 3D scanning technology for crime scene investigation (CSI) has grown in recent years, a number of barriers still remain that prevent its wide adoption in the criminal justice system. One such barrier comes from the lack of tools that can validate a 3D scan and verify that it has not been manipulated. While a great deal of research has gone into the detection of manipulations for 2D images, the detection of manipulations for 3D scenes has yet to be fully realized.This paper introduces a series of techniques to detect if a 3D point cloud generated from a LiDAR scan has been subsequently manipulated. These techniques exploit fundamental structures inherent in the collection and storage of these types of data. While the proposed techniques are able to detect a number of different types of manipulations, their limitations are also discussed. The goal of this work is to provide a foundation for the creation of a validation toolkit that can ensure 3D scan data is valid and unaltered.     

诉讼中“证据占优势”标准的可行性分析

文章对三大诉讼的证明标准进行了比较分析.在此基础上对“证据占优势”证据标准加以理性剖析,认为其体现了“谁主张谁举证”的普通性举证责任原理,体现了达到“法律真实”的证明任务的要求,体现了民事诉讼中的民事意思自治原则和诉讼经济原则;从理论层面、制度背景、法律规定、公民诉讼观念的转变以及司法实践等五个方面对“证据占优势”证明标准在我国的可行性进行了探讨.