司法鉴定专家委员会制度刍议

当前,司法鉴定专家委员会在解决鉴定意见争议方面发挥着不小的作用。但理论与实务界,对于专家委员会的设立目的、职能权限乃至组成人员资质等方面均存在分歧,以致引发了人们对于专家委员会存在必要性与合理性的质疑。本文即对这一鉴定意见争议解决机制展开研究,从该制度的产生渊源、各地的相关规定入手,从现状、存在必要性、发展困境等方面进行分析讨论,从而对该制度的未来发展趋势和改进完善提出看法与建议。     

完善我国医疗损害鉴定制度的思考

医疗鉴定意见在医疗纠纷案件的定性和裁判中具有十分重要的地位.我国现行的医疗鉴定制度由医学会组织的医疗事故技术鉴定和司法鉴定机构组织的医疗过错司法鉴定两者并存,形成了医疗鉴定制度“二元化”的现象.《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》的施行虽然消除了医疗损害赔偿案件适用法律的“二元化”问题,但医疗鉴定制度的“二元化”现象并没有被打破.探讨建立“一元化”的医疗鉴定制度,并引入专家辅助人制度对“一元化”医疗鉴定制度进行监督和辅助,希望在寻求司法公正与效率的基础上建立更加科学、完善、合理的医疗鉴定体制.     

中立与合意——两大法系鉴定证据制度的融合

鉴定证据制度是人类社会发展进步的必然产物 ,是证明方法理性和文明的标志。两大法系的鉴定证据制度围绕公正和效率的主题互相借鉴和学习过程中 ,表现出鉴定启动从“随意”到“令状”、主体选择的“合意”先于“指定”、主体地位从“依附”到“独立”、双方认同的“合意”优于“程序”的趋势。我国目前鉴定证据制度中存在鉴定启动的随意性、鉴定主体地位缺乏应有的中立、双方当事人的举证权利未受到平等对待等一系列问题 ,为实现司法公正与效率的价值目标 ,“中立与合意”是我国鉴定证据制度改革过程中的必然选择     

专家辅助人制度立法旨意与运行规范之思考

为了实现以审判为中心,贯彻直接言词原则,辅助当事人对庭审中鉴定意见或者专业问题进行有效质证,设立专家辅助人制度很有必要,符合三大诉讼法的立法旨意。但是相关法律法规对专家辅助人角色没有更多的释明,造成在其近十年运行过程中与立法旨意的诸多不相适问题。对专家辅助人申请启动、资格审查、名册编撰、席位设置、回避规定、进退庭规则、意见采信、人身安全及权责一致等方面运行程序增强规范,可回归专家辅助人制度的立法设置之旨意,实现新时代的现代诉讼理念。     

鉴定意见的审查判断问题

司法鉴定制度的改革不仅带来了司法鉴定体制的变化,而且促成了相关证据规则的完善。作为一种法定的证据种类,＂鉴定意见＂不再具有＂鉴定结论＂的效力,而要像其他证据一样,在证明力和证据能力方面经受法庭上的审查过程。违背法定的鉴定主体资格、鉴定程序、鉴真方法或鉴定文书的形式要件,鉴定人所提供的鉴定意见应被排除于法庭之外。有关鉴定意见的证据能力规则,不仅维护了法律程序的实施,而且可最大限度地增强该证据的证明力。从未来刑事证据法发展的角度来看,只有在宏观层面的司法体制和中观层面的鉴定程序方面发生实质性的变化,处于微观层面的鉴定证据规则才能有更大的制度空间。     

Medical responsibility in the operating room: the example of an amniotic fluid embolism

Amniotic fluid embolism (AFE) continues to be one of the most feared complications of pregnancy. A healthy 32-year-old woman died during delivery after a normal 39-week third pregnancy. The family filed a complaint with a criminal court as the causes of death appeared unclear. No risk factor associated with AFE was identified. Clinical presentation was typical, including sudden onset of cardiovascular and respiratory symptoms. Autopsy confirmed the histological diagnosis of amniotic embolism and excluded an iatrogenic cause of death or anesthetic malpractice. This article highlights the value of both antemortem records and histological features in establishing the diagnosis of AFE and demonstrates the fundamental importance of autopsy in an unexpected death related directly or indirectly to a medical procedure.     

The Persistence of Sperm and the Development of Time Since Intercourse (TSI) Guidelines in Sexual Assault Cases at Forensic Science Ireland,Dublin, Ireland

The persistence of sperm using confirmatory microscopic analysis, the persistence of sperm with tails, time since intercourse (TSI) analysis, and results from the acid phosphatase (AP) reaction from approximately 5581 swabs taken from circa 1450 sexual assault cases are presented. The observed proportions of sperm in the vagina and anus declines significantly after 48 h TSI, and sperm on oral swabs were observed up to 15 h TSI. The AP reaction as a predictor of sperm on intimate swabs is questioned. All AP reaction times gave a low true positive rate; 23% of sperm‐positive swabs gave a negative AP reaction time. We show the AP reaction is an unsafe and an unreliable predictor of sperm on intimate swabs. We propose that TSI not AP informs precase assessment and the evaluative approach for sexual assault cases. To help inform an evaluative approach, TSI guidelines are presented.     

我国刑事证据的分类标准及其完善

我国刑事诉讼法明确规定了7类证据,其划分要素有二：一是证据材料发挥证明作用的方式;二是证据材料产生的时间。学术界认为刑事诉讼法只是按照证据材料的表现形式来分类的观点是片面的,这也导致了实务中的困境。理清证据种类的划分标准,才能准确定位刑事证据材料的类属,进而正确适用相应的证据规则,使其发挥应有的证明功能。此外,法典中规定的证据种类有的含义过于狭窄,需要对之做相应的扩大解释,以解决司法实践中出现的困惑。     

RULEMAKING POSSIBILITIES: EFFORTS OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL CONFERENCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON EVIDENCE RULES TO ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES TO FORENSIC EXPERT TESTIMONY

This piece is an echo to one of the main subjects of the Sixth International Conference on Evidence Law and Forensic Science which is to determine what evidentiary reforms are necessary for regulating forensic expert testimony, and how those reforms might be implemented. In United States, the predominant way of evidentiary reform is through rulemaking. As the Reporter of Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on the Federal Rules of Evidence since 1996, the author, with a pragmatic spirit throughout the article, examines such an effort at the federal level of U.S. in six parts (levels), starting from the most general, abstract level till finishing with the most detailed and substantive points. Part I begins with a brief introduction of the hierarchies of evidentiary rulemaking authorities at the federal level of the United States, various interested groups and their interesting interactions in the rulemaking process. The author then shifts to the general topic of writing rules with a specific focus on the level of detail that is to be provided in doing so; Part II further narrows down the scrutiny into writing a rule on forensic expert testimony with an emphasis on the necessity of making such a rule change to the current general standards of FRE; Part III directly addresses the challenges of drafting a rule on forensic evidence in FRE, including a comparation of various alternative drafting models; Part IV and Part V respectively discusses the Reporter’s comments and the Justice Department’s concerns over the drafted rules; and Part VI briefly discusses the feasibility and effectiveness of a Best Practices Manual on forensic evidence in lieu of rulemaking.