论在医疗纠纷诉讼中推行专家辅助人制度

医学专家意见在医疗纠纷诉讼中占有重要地位，在不同法系国家分别以鉴定和专家证言的形式出现在法庭诉讼中。目前，我国已形成了以医疗事故技术鉴定和医疗过错鉴定为主体的医疗专业技术鉴定体制，但当前面临着诸多困境。从专家证据制度改革和医学专家意见形成特点等层面分析，专家辅助人制度与普通法系国家专家证人制度类似．其和鉴定制度的有机结合可以在医疗纠纷诉讼领域构建更为理想的专家证据制度：有助于最大限度地使法律真实靠近客观真实。但过于强大的医疗专业技术鉴定制度对专家辅助人制度具有明显的压制作用．因此需适当限制鉴定制度，大力推行专家辅助人制度，同时应总结相关国家经验教训。防止专家辅助人制度产生不应有的负面效应。     

司法鉴定与“案结事了”

本文通过分析一个涉及法医学鉴定的刑事案例,导出司法鉴定对案结事了的积极作用,重点论述了目前司法鉴定制度影响案结事了存在的问题。司法鉴定制度与案结事了密切相关,司法鉴定制度改革决定案结事了这一司法目的。特别强调案结事了背后,可能因对司法鉴定所谓权威性的迷信或盲目遵从而丧失最基本的公平正义。指出专家辅助人制度的建立将有助于真正实现案结事了。     

“专家失灵”及对策建议

党的十六届四中全会明确指出“要完善专家咨询制度,实行决策的论证制和责任制,防止决策的随意性”。它体现了专家参与政府公共决策的必要性和重要性。实践中专家决策参与活动取得了明显成效但也存在某些问题。“专家失灵”是其中最集中最典型的问题。本文通过“专家失灵”原因的探究试图寻找到相应的补救措施,以期实现专家决策参与的科学性和有效性。     

司法鉴定若干问题的法律思考

司法鉴定是由专门机构和人员对诉讼中涉及到的专门性问题进行鉴别判断并作出结论的一项准司法活动。我国在司法鉴定领域存在着鉴定机构设置和管理混乱无序,鉴定从业人员水平能力不一,鉴定程序缺少透明度,对鉴定结论司法审查力度不大等问题。笔者拟从法律角度对上述问题进行分析并提出若干立法建议。     

论专家辅助人意见——以刑事辩护为视角的分析

我国2012年新《刑事诉讼法》首次设立了专家辅助人制度，对鉴定意见的质证提供了技术上的支持，对于刑事辩护来说意义重大。从证据法的角度看来，专家辅助人意见具有言词证据、意见证据、弹劾证据的多重属性，因此意见的内容应围绕鉴定意见中的专门性问题，并结合《刑事诉讼法》及相关司法解释对鉴定意见的审查判断规则来提出；而法庭对于鉴定意见的审查也应从准入资格与可靠性两方面进行，以免专家辅助人意见替代鉴定意见来主导审判。     

Does the number of parties to place affect the placement of parties? Results from an expert survey experiment

Expert surveys are frequently used in comparative politics to measure the ideological locations of political parties. However, it is possible that increasing the number of parties to place systematically biases results as experts try to fit more actors onto a common space. We test this possibility with an experiment embedded in an “expert” survey – with graduate students serving as our pool of experts to ensure an adequate sample size – by varying the number of parties to be placed in the United Kingdom and Germany. We find some tendency for the variance of Labor and SPD placements to diminish when more parties are present, and for SPD placements to move toward the center given more parties. However, we find no consistent evidence that the number of parties systematically affects mean or median party placements. Our results support the reliability of expert surveys as an indicator of party ideology.     

论科学证据、专家证言、鉴定意见三者的关系

与科学证据有关的法律概念主要有大陆法的鉴定意见,以及英美法国家的专家证言。鉴定意见与专家证言之间,由于具有不同的证据法原理,不具有可比性。在英美法国家,科学证据应是专家证言的下位概念;在大陆法国家,科学证据与鉴定意见之间的关系,与鉴定的法律定位密切相关,要具体国家具体分析。明确这一点,有利于厘清我国科学证据的相关法律定位及其与鉴定意见之间的关系。     

司法鉴定结论使用中存在问题及解决途径——兼论我国诉讼专家辅助人制度的建构和完善

鉴定结论是司法工作中经常使用的重要证据形式,但在使用中存在诸多问题。这主要是因为当事人及其司法人员缺乏相应的科学技术知识和专门知识不能对鉴定结论进行科学评判。通过建构和完善我国诉讼中的专家辅助人制度就可以从根本上解决鉴定结论运用中存在的那些问题。     

Educator of the court: the role of the expert witness in cases involving autism spectrum disorder

The role of the expert witness in legal contexts is to educate fact finders of the court who may have no background in the expert’s area. This role can be especially difficult for those who assist in cases involving individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). As expert assistance on ASD is crucial to ensuring just outcomes for individuals diagnosed with ASD, knowledge on how expert witnesses perceive and approach their roles, and what factors may influence these perceptions, is essential. This qualitative research utilizes semi-structured interviews with a sample of expert witnesses in cases involving ASD, analyzed using a grounded-theory constant-comparative analytic approach. Data reveal that experts appear to view their roles in court as reconstructionists, educators, myth-dispellers, and most of all, communicators, actively using their testimony to fill these roles in cases. These results also allow for the development of a model that illustrates two areas that coalesce to affect how experts view their roles in court: (1) personal experiences of experts in cases in which they have been involved; and (2) influences outside experts’ personal experiences, such as their general opinions or observations regarding ASD and its relationship to the criminal justice system.     

The Views of Psychologists,Lawyers, and Judges on Key Components and the Quality of Child Custody Evaluations in Australia

This study aimed to understand the expectations of and the agreement between professional groups regarding the quality of single‐expert reports written by psychologists (known as child custody evaluations in the United States). 13 psychologists, 18 family lawyers, 26 children's lawyers, and 8 judges (N = 65) in New South Wales, Australia, rated the overall quality of reports and the quality of various components of them. Interprofessional congruence on importance ratings allowed key components to be derived. The results revealed that the overall quality of reports was rated positively, however, significant discrepancies were found between importance and quality ratings on the various components, indicating that reports fall short of expectations in many areas.