Dueling experts and imperfect verification

In the Dueling Experts Game, adversarial experts strategically produce “good” or “bad” evidence to support their partisan testimony. Good evidence is probative while bad evidence has no evidentiary value. The new feature of this Game is that Judge sometimes erroneously identifies good evidence as bad evidence and vice versa. Along the Game’s equilibrium path, each partisan expert produces only good evidence if it supports his side. When favorable good evidence is unavailable, an expert produces bad evidence to support his testimony. Hence, dueling experts always contradict one another. Despite their conflicting testimony, one of the experts invariably produces the available good evidence for Judge. Therefore, Judge always receives the available good evidence. A central result is that the quality of experts, including their ability to persuade judges using available good evidence, and the quality of judges – their ability to distinguish good from bad evidence – determine the accuracy of verdicts. Remarkably, the likelihood that experts are endowed with good evidence does not matter provided that this likelihood is not identically zero or one.     

Covert communication by means of email spam: A challenge for digital investigation

In digital investigations the investigator typically has to deal with thousands of digital artifacts. Among them, email has long been one of the many focuses that potentially can generate useful information. However, in our training we notice a tendency to overlook or downplay the importance of analyzing spam emails as they are generally assumed to be irrelevant junk emails. In this article we thus illustrate how these seemingly irrelevant messages might play a crucial role in digital investigations. Five scenarios are introduced in which the investigator tends to overlook crucial incriminating information that has been disguised as spam. The methods used by criminals in these cases are discussed. In light of these covert criminal communications, we call for more attention from the digital forensics community to realize how email spam may assist in criminal activities.     

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。     

论司法鉴定人出庭作证

我国的三大诉讼法和仲裁法皆把司法鉴定结论作为法定证据,鉴定人是鉴定结论产生的主体,必然受到诉讼制度和证据制度的规范,而具有一定的法律地位和责任。在我国当前的诉讼模式下,诉讼证据依靠两个屏障加以过滤:其一,当事人、鉴定人出庭质证参与诉讼;其二,由法官的采证、法官的内心确信而形成。所以鉴定人出庭出具作为证据的司法鉴定结论,接受当事人的质询和法官的询问,这是鉴定程序的最后阶段,也是鉴定结论能否升华为诉讼证据的关键所在,直接影响法庭对鉴定结论的采信。鉴于此,鉴定人出庭作证是十分必要和必须进行规范。当前,鉴定人出庭甚少,该制度需要进行调整和完善。     

侦查取证环节存在的问题及对策研究——兼论侦查取证规则的确立

近年来,对错案的讨论成为热点,这在一定程度上反映出刑事证据法律规则的缺失导致对侦查取证的监控和管理不力。司法实践中在证据的收集、固定、保管等方面存在不少问题,为此需要在分析侦查取证环节常发问题的成因的基础上,进一步探讨完善侦查取证的对策,并对确立侦查取证规则的相关基础理论进行反思。     

Evidence and Contestation in the Indigenous Policy Domain: Voice,Ideology and Institutional Inequality

There is a tension in the evidence‐based policy paradigm as it concerns Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, particularly with regard to their standing as evidence providers. Aboriginal people in Australia have primarily been seen as a ‘problem to be solved’ and racialised views of Aboriginal competence have allowed for past policy, now recognised as harmful, to be justified as being ‘for their own good’. This article considers some of the complexities of the evidence‐based policy paradigm as it applies to the Indigenous policy domain, arguing that in such a turbulent field the use of evidence is inevitably ideological and selective. The article concludes that, in light of persistent institutional inequalities, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander voices and perspectives in genuine dialogue about policy is the only way to navigate this difficult terrain with any chance of success.     

Group Differences in Fairness Perceptions and Decision Making in Voting Rights Cases

Participants recruited from one Historically Black University (HBU) and two predominantly White higher-education institutions evaluated and decided simulated voting rights case summaries in which the plaintiff was either a racially-defined (African American) or a nonracially-defined (farmers) minority group. Contrary to social identity and social justice findings of an in-group bias, the present study showed greater support at all institutions for the voting rights of the African Americans than for the rural farmers, and the greatest support for both minority groups was found at the HBU. Perceived evidence strength was a better predictor of decisions than perceived unfairness, and both of these predictor variables completely mediated the effects of institution-type and involvement of a racially-defined group on decisions.     

“短暂物证”的研究与应用

从侦查实践的实际需出发以及微量物证的研究角度与思路获得的启发,结合国外的研究成果,本文提出“短暂物证”的概念。即:短暂物证就是在短时间客观存在并且保持物质实体的属性、特征或者存在状况容易改变或者消失的物证。对“短暂物证”的研究有利于提高物证利用及现场勘查工作的水平。     

加拿大电子证据法对英美传统证据规则的突破

电子证据对传统英美证据规则的挑战主要涉及最佳证据规则、鉴证规则和传闻规则.加拿大<统一电子证据法>直接以"电子记录"和"电子记录系统"来界定电子证据,突破了传统最佳证据规则对"原件"的要求,新创设"系统完整性"标准来解决电子证据中有关最佳证据的问题,规定鉴证只需验证电子记录系统的完整性与可靠性即可,并对传闻规则中的宣誓和交叉询问作出了新的规定.中国有必要借鉴国外的先进立法经验,讨论有关电子证据的立法模式与立法内容问题.     

英美民事证据开示若干问题研析

作为实现司法正义的重要手段,英美的民事证据开示制度发挥了关键作用。从"形而上"的角度看,该制度背后最基本的理念是FairPlay精神。本文主要从微观角度对证据开示的一些具体制度,即开示的主体、对象、范围、时限要求、法定例外、有关专家证言是否开示、相关会议安排以及对滥用开示制度的法律制裁等进行研讨。证据开示制度内容丰富,程序严谨,有利于平等保护双方当事人的权益,值得我国学习和借鉴。