刑事鉴定之程序维度

在程序维度,司法鉴定在刑事诉讼中一般要经历决定利用科学的辅助、选定适格的鉴定人员、检材送交鉴定机构进行分析、明确鉴定事项和要求、进行科学检验、提交鉴定结论、审前开示鉴定结论以及审查评断鉴定结论科学性等几大环节。     

数字化描述指纹鉴定结论的初探

目的 针对指纹鉴定常用的5类纹型所占的概率、4类细节特征点所占的概率及4类细节特征点组合概率,探讨用数字计算出指纹鉴定结论相同概率的方法.方法 取已破案件被比中人员中具有5类纹型及4类细节特征点的指纹1000人份,分为10组,每组100人份进行概率分析.结果 指纹的5类纹型、4类细节特征点及组合概率存在稳定的规律.结论 可以数字化描述指纹鉴定结论.     

我国医疗损害诉讼中专家辅助人制度的现状与建议

2002年《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》规定了民事诉讼中的专家辅助人。2013年修订的《民事诉讼法》中也明确了民事诉讼中的专家辅助人制度。在司法实践中,医疗损害的案件专业性强,并且案件通常都会涉及到医疗损害技术鉴定,这就使得医疗损害案件是民事案件中经常需要专家辅助人的一类案件。本文在剖析了专家辅助人的诉讼地位后,认为我国医疗损害案件中的专家辅助人不同于英美法系中医疗诉讼中的专家证人,也不同于证人、鉴定人和诉讼代理人。在此基础上,探讨了医学专家辅助人在医疗损害案件诉讼的实际应用,并针对现有相关规定中不明确的地方提出了完善医疗损害诉讼中专家辅助人制度的建议。     

专家证言、新科学理论与法官角色——以美国法中的Daubert标准为中心

在专家证言的可采性判断标准上,Daubert标准替代＂普遍接受＂标准成为发展方向。Daubert标准在赋予法官很大的自由裁量的同时,也赋予其艰巨的＂守门人＂角色。Daubert标准将决定权中心从专业界移至法官。Daubert标准对多种因素的弹性考量给新科学证据的可采性提供了机遇和可能,但是一切要取决于法官的自由裁量和＂守门人＂职责的履行。     

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。     

Medical malpractice as reflected by the forensic evaluation of 4450 autopsies

A multicentre retrospective analysis of 4450 autopsies carried out due to suspicion of medical malpractice in 17 German institutes of forensic medicine from 1990 to 2000 was performed for the German Federal Ministry of Health. During the time period analysed an increase of cases could be mentioned. The main results of the study are: in the cooperating institutes the total number of autopsies due to suspected medical malpractice ranged from 1.4 to 20%. In more than 40% of the cases preliminary proceedings were started because the manner of death was certified as non-natural or not clarified. Hospital doctors were more affected by medical malpractice claims than doctors in private practice. However, the number of confirmed cases of medical malpractice was higher for doctors in private practice than for hospital doctors. Although surgery is still at the top of the disciplines involved in medical malpractice claims the number of confirmed surgical cases was below the average. Mistakes in care were confirmed to be above the average. Medico-legal autopsies are still a very sufficient method to evaluate cases of medical malpractice: 2863 cases could already be clarified by autopsy. Up to now there is no systematic registration of medical malpractice charges in Germany. A systematic registration should be initiated to build up and/or improve error reporting systems and, thus, to improve patient safety. Compared to other sources of medical malpractice claims (arbitration committees of the medical chambers, reference material of health and insurance companies, files of civil courts) the data of the present multicentre study are in so far unique as only lethal cases were evaluated and a complete autopsy report was available as basis of an expert opinion in alleged medical malpractice cases.     

犯罪心理测试结论及其证据属性

证据具有客观性、关联性、合法性等特征,鉴定结论属于证据的一种。理论和实践都证明犯罪心理测试结论也具有证据的客观性、关联性、合法性等特征,因此,犯罪心理测试结论的属性是证据,且属于《刑事诉讼法》规定的七种证据形式之一的鉴定结论。当前我国犯罪心理测试制度存在不科学、不完善等问题,应从测试主体、测试程序、测试环境条件、测试方法和测试结论的审查等方面规范测试制度。     

法律判断形成的模式

法律判断是应用法律的结果。法律应用包括法律适用和法律发现 ,且主要是法律发现。在法律适用中 ,事实与规范相适应 ,判断可直接通过推论得出 ,这可称为推论模式 ;而在法律发现中 ,由于事实与规范不对称 ,在通过推论得出判断之前 ,先要对事实与规范进行等置 ,使事实一般化 ,将个案向规范提升 ,将规范具体化 ,使规范向个案下延 ,并在两者之间来回审视 ,螺旋式向上发展 ,这就是等置模式。相应地 ,法律判断形成模式包括推论模式和等置模式两种。     

Suggestive Eyewitness Identification Procedures and the Supreme Court’s Reliability Test in Light of Eyewitness Science: 30 Years Later

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling concerning suggestive eyewitness identification procedures (Manson v. Braithwaite, 1977, 432 U.S. 98) has not been revisited by the Court in the intervening 30+ years. Meanwhile, scientific studies of eyewitnesses have progressed and DNA exonerations show that mistaken identification is the primary cause of convictions of the innocent. We analyzed the two-inquiry logic in Manson in light of eyewitness science. Several problems are discussed. Ironically, we note that suggestive identification procedures (determined in the first inquiry) boost the eyewitnesses’ standing on three of the five criteria (used in the second inquiry) that are used to decide whether the suggestive procedures were a problem. The net effect undermines safeguards intended by the Court and destroys incentives to avoid suggestive procedures.

侦查终结辨正

人们对侦查终结的认识存在偏颇,我们应对侦查终结和基本条件做科学界定,建议完善侦查终结立法。