美国法庭聘请专家证人的实践与启示
|
摘要
科学证据的审查判断向来是审判的难题。美国通过法庭聘请专家证人弥补法官的知识短板,履行多伯特案后法官肩负之科学证据守门人职责。这项制度在硅胶丰胸案中得以成功运用。广义上的法庭聘请专家包括"技术顾问"和《联邦证据规则》706条"法庭聘请专家",分别具有不同的法理依据、职能与适用程序。该制度能避免专家证人的党派性,帮助事实裁决者采纳科学证据,甚至促进诉讼和解。但由于与当事人主义理念不符、增加诉讼资源的投入、法庭聘请专家也未必中立,其实践运用有限。它对我国专家辅助人制度有所启示:在职权主义基础上引入专家证人对抗式要防止过犹不及,避免专家辅助人党派性弊端。即使法庭聘请专家辅助人,也难以保证中立。从根本上解决法官的知识短板,促进法学与司法鉴定教育的融入,培养复合型法官是必由之路。
The examination and determination of scientific evidence has always been a difficult task for the fact finder during the trial process. In U.S., court-appointed expert witnesses are employed to cover the knowledge shortage of judges and to aid judges in fulfilling their duties as "gate keepers" of admissibility of scientific evidence since the Daubert decision. And such system was successfully applied in cases of silicone-gel-breast-implant products liability. The court-appointed experts in broad terms usually can be classified in two ways, either as the technical advisor or as the expert witness under Rule 706 of Federal Rules of Evidence, which bear different legal basis, functions and application rules. This system of court-appointed experts is designed to prevent partisanship of expert witness, assist fact finders in admitting complex scientific evidence, and even encourage parties to reach settlement. However, due to its incompatibility with the adversarial values, tendency to consume more judicial resources, and uncertainty in impartiality of court-appointed experts, the system has its own limitation in practice. We can learn from this system when constructing the expert assistant system in China. The partisanship of experts should be minimized when we add adversarial factors into the inquisitorial system. Even those experts appointed by court may not be able to keep neutral. The promising path to keep on educating judges, promoting the integration of knowledge of law and education of judicial appraisal, thus cultivating adjudicators who can understand both law and science.
The examination and determination of scientific evidence has always been a difficult task for the fact finder during the trial process. In U.S., court-appointed expert witnesses are employed to cover the knowledge shortage of judges and to aid judges in fulfilling their duties as "gate keepers" of admissibility of scientific evidence since the Daubert decision. And such system was successfully applied in cases of silicone-gel-breast-implant products liability. The court-appointed experts in broad terms usually can be classified in two ways, either as the technical advisor or as the expert witness under Rule 706 of Federal Rules of Evidence, which bear different legal basis, functions and application rules. This system of court-appointed experts is designed to prevent partisanship of expert witness, assist fact finders in admitting complex scientific evidence, and even encourage parties to reach settlement. However, due to its incompatibility with the adversarial values, tendency to consume more judicial resources, and uncertainty in impartiality of court-appointed experts, the system has its own limitation in practice. We can learn from this system when constructing the expert assistant system in China. The partisanship of experts should be minimized when we add adversarial factors into the inquisitorial system. Even those experts appointed by court may not be able to keep neutral. The promising path to keep on educating judges, promoting the integration of knowledge of law and education of judicial appraisal, thus cultivating adjudicators who can understand both law and science.
引文
1例如,为促使专家咨询机制常态化、委员履职保障工作体系化以及咨询结果运用多样化,北京市海淀区人民法院成立了全市基层法院首家专家咨询委员会,在民事案件中引入专家辅助人协助庭审调查。参见王晓丹:《海淀法院自成立专家咨询委员会后首用专家辅助人制度》,“海淀法院网”:http://bjhdfy.chinacourt.org/public/detail.php?id=4975,最后访问日期:2017年9月1日。
2 参见拙著:《司法鉴定基本问题研究:以刑诉法司法鉴定条款实施情况为侧重点》,法律出版社2016年版;参见拙文:《鉴定人出庭作证制度实证研究》,《法律科学》2016年第6期。
3 美国的法庭聘请专家证人制度是一个广义的概念,它具体包括《联邦证据规则》第706条所规定的“法庭聘请专家”(Court Appointed Expert)和基于《联邦证据规则》第104条(a)派生的“技术顾问”(Technical Advisor)两项制度。从狭义上而言,法庭聘请专家特指第706条的“法庭聘请专家”(Court Appointed Expert)。本文主要是从广义上分析美国法庭聘请专家证人制度。
4 See Ex parte Peterson,253 US 300,312(1920).
5 See Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,Inc.509 US.579,580(1993).
6 See Marcia Angell,Science on Trial:The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case,at 104(1997).
7 See Sten v.Daw Corning Corp.Case No.C-83-2348-MMP(ND Cal.1985).
8 See Michael E.Reed,Daubert and the Breast Implant Litigation:How is the Judiciary Addressing the Science?Vol.100,No.5 Plastic and Reconstructive surgery,1322-1326(October 1997);William W.Schwarzer&Joe S.Ceil,Management of Expert Evidence.In Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 39(2d ed.Federal Judicial Center 2000)available at https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/sciman00.pdf.
9 See Jocelyn Kaiser.Breast Implant Ruling Sends a Massage,275 SCT.21(Jan.3,1997).
10 See Hall v.Baxter Healthcare Corp 947 F Supp 1387(1996).
11 In re:Silicone Gel Breast Implant Products Liability Litigation.(MDL 926),Order No.31E:Directions to National Science Panel Under FRE 706(1996).
12 See William W.Schwarzer&Joe S.Ceil,Management of Expert Evidence.In Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 39(2d ed.Federal Judicial Center 2000)available at https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/sciman00.pdf
13 See Betty A.Diamond,Barbara S.Hulka,Nancy I.Kerkvliet,etal.Silicone Breast Implants in Relation to Connective Tissue Diseases and Immunologic Dysfunction:A Report by a National Science Panel to the Honorable Sam C.Pointer Jr.Coordinating Judge for the Federal Breast Implant Multi-District Litigation(1998).
14 See Faigman DL,Kaye DH,Saks MJ,Sanders J.Science in the Law:Standards,Statistics,and Research Issues,West Group,2002.
15 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 104(a).
16 Id.
17 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 1008.
18 See Daubert,supra note 5,at 592-93;Gen Elec.Co.522 US at 142.
19 See Ex parte Peterson,supra note 4.
20 See Samuel R.Gross,Expert evidence,1991 Wis.L.Rev.1181(1991)(outlining the problems with partisan expert testimony and suggesting reforms using court-appointed experts).
21 See Hyongsoon Kim,Adversarialism defended:Daubert and the judge's role in evaluating expert evidence,34 Colum.J.L.&Soc.Probs.223,226(2000-2001).
22 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 706 Advisory Committee’s Notes.
23《联邦证据规则》第104条a规定:“法院必须决定一切前置性问题有关是否证人具备资格,特权是否存在,或证据是否可采。在决定上述问题时,法院并不受制于证据规则的约束,除非那些规定特权的内容。”
24 See Willging,Supra note 8,at 3.
25 See Sophia Cope,Ripe for revision:a critique of the Federal Rule of Evidence 706 and the use of court appointed experts,39 Gonzaga Law Review,182(2003)
26 See Reilly v.United States,863 F 2d 156(1st Cir,1988).
27 See Association of Mexican-American Educators v.California.No.C-92-3874 WHO.Sept.17,1996.
28 Ex parte communications表示单边交流的意思。“Ex parte”是一个拉丁法律术语,表示“单边的当事人”。
29 See Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v.California,231 F 3d 572,611(9th Cir.2000).
30 《联邦证据规则》第706条只规定法庭聘请的专家的职责包括:(1)必须就专家做出的任何研究发现告知当事人;(2)可以为任何当事人所进行证言存录:(3)可以被法院或者任何当事人传唤作证;以及(4)可以接受任何当事人交叉询问,包括传唤该专家的当事人。
31 See Rule 706(b)Expert’s Role.The court must inform the expert of the expert’s duties.The court may do so in writing and have a copy filed with the clerk or may do so orally at a conference in which and have a copy filed with the clerk or may do so orally at a conference in which the parties have an opportunity to participate.The expert:(1)must advise the parties of any findings the expert makes;(2)may be deposed by any party;(3)may be called to testify by the court or any party;and(4)may be cross-examined by any party,including the party that called the expert.
32 See Joe S.Cecil&Thomas E.Willging,Accepting Daubert’s invitation:defining a role for court-appointing experts in assessing scientific validity,43 Emory L.J.995,1010(1994).
33 In the federal practice,a comprehensive scheme for court appointed experts was initiated with the adoption of Rule 28of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946.See Federal Rules of Evidence 2017-2018 Edition,West Academic Publishing,2017,p165.
34 See Note,Improving Judicial Gatekeeping:Technical Advisors and Scientific Evidence,110 Harv.L.Rev.941,952(1997).
35 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 28:The court may select,appoint,and set the reasonable compensation for an interpreter.The compensation must be paid from funds provided by law or by the government,as the court may direct.
36 See Daubert,supra note 5,at 579,595.
37 Id.
38 See Hall v.Baxter Healthcare Corp.,947 F Supp.1387,1391-95(D.Or.1996).
39 See Laural L.Hooper,Joe S.Cecil,Thomas E.Willging,Assessing causation in breast implant litigation:the role of science panels,64 Law&Contemp.Probs.139,143(2001).
40 See Reilly supra note 26.
41 See Laural L.et al.,supra note 39.
42 Citing Laura L.Hooper,Joe S.Cecil,Thomas E.Willging.Neutral Science Panels:Two Examples of Court-Appointed Experts in the Breast Implants Product Litigation 9(Federal Judicial Center 2001).
43 See Lauren Neergaard,FDA Says No to Silicone Implants,San Fran.Chron.,Jan.9,2004,at 155.
44 231 F.3d 572,611(9th Cir.2000).
45 Id 610-11.
46 See Michael T.Nietzel et al.Juries:the current state of the empirical literature,in psychology and law:the state of the discipline.10 Perspectives in law&psychology,23,38(1999).
47 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 706(d).
48 See Developments in the Law—Confronting the New Challenges of Scientific Evidence,108 Harv.L.Rev.1583,1589(1995).
49 See Joe S.Cecil&Thomas E.Willging.Court-Appointed Experts:Defining the Role of Experts Appointed under Federal Rules of Evidence 706,at 12,Washington,DC One Columbus Circle,N.E.,Washington 20002-8003:Federal Judicial Center(1993).
50 See Black,B;Ayala,Fj;Saffranbrinks,C.Science and the law in the wake of Daubert:a new search for scientific knowledge,72 Texas Law Review,715-802(1994).
51 See Daubert supra note 5,at 592-93.
52 See,e.g.,Bert Black supra note 50 at 795-96.(suggesting court-appointed experts as a method for applying the Daubert test);Joe S.Cecil&Thomas E.Willging,Accepting Daubert's Invitation:defining a role for court-appointed experts in assessing scientific validity,43 Emory L.J.995(1994)(advocating increased use of court-appointed experts).
53 Id.
54 See Richard A.Ponser,The Federal Courts:Crisis and Reform 317-18,Cambridge,Mass.Harvard University Press,?1985.See generally Thomas E.Baker,Rationing Justice on Appeal:The Problems of the US Courts of Appeals,St.Paul,Minn.:West Pub.Co.,1994.
55 Karen Butler Reisinger.Court-appointed expert panels:a comparison of two models.32,Indian Law Review,237(1998).
56 See Notes,supra note 34.at 1583,1595.
57 See Joe S.Cecil&Thomas E.Willing.Moore’s Federal Practice:Reference manual on Scientific Evidence,Matthew Bender&Co.Inc.,1994,p547,554.
58 See Nancy J.Brekke,Peter J.Enko,Gail Clavet and Eric Seelau.Of juries and court appointed experts:the effect of nonadversarial versus adversarial testimony,15 Law&Hum.Behav,451(1991).
59 See Joes.Cecil&Thomas E.Willgng,supra note 49 at 97.
60 See Elwood S.Levy,Impartialmedicaltestimony-revisited,34 Temp.L.Q424(1961).
61 See J.Langhein,The German advantage in Civil Procedures.52 U.Chi.L.Rev(1985),pp823,835.
2 参见拙著:《司法鉴定基本问题研究:以刑诉法司法鉴定条款实施情况为侧重点》,法律出版社2016年版;参见拙文:《鉴定人出庭作证制度实证研究》,《法律科学》2016年第6期。
3 美国的法庭聘请专家证人制度是一个广义的概念,它具体包括《联邦证据规则》第706条所规定的“法庭聘请专家”(Court Appointed Expert)和基于《联邦证据规则》第104条(a)派生的“技术顾问”(Technical Advisor)两项制度。从狭义上而言,法庭聘请专家特指第706条的“法庭聘请专家”(Court Appointed Expert)。本文主要是从广义上分析美国法庭聘请专家证人制度。
4 See Ex parte Peterson,253 US 300,312(1920).
5 See Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals,Inc.509 US.579,580(1993).
6 See Marcia Angell,Science on Trial:The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case,at 104(1997).
7 See Sten v.Daw Corning Corp.Case No.C-83-2348-MMP(ND Cal.1985).
8 See Michael E.Reed,Daubert and the Breast Implant Litigation:How is the Judiciary Addressing the Science?Vol.100,No.5 Plastic and Reconstructive surgery,1322-1326(October 1997);William W.Schwarzer&Joe S.Ceil,Management of Expert Evidence.In Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 39(2d ed.Federal Judicial Center 2000)available at https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/sciman00.pdf.
9 See Jocelyn Kaiser.Breast Implant Ruling Sends a Massage,275 SCT.21(Jan.3,1997).
10 See Hall v.Baxter Healthcare Corp 947 F Supp 1387(1996).
11 In re:Silicone Gel Breast Implant Products Liability Litigation.(MDL 926),Order No.31E:Directions to National Science Panel Under FRE 706(1996).
12 See William W.Schwarzer&Joe S.Ceil,Management of Expert Evidence.In Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 39(2d ed.Federal Judicial Center 2000)available at https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/sciman00.pdf
13 See Betty A.Diamond,Barbara S.Hulka,Nancy I.Kerkvliet,etal.Silicone Breast Implants in Relation to Connective Tissue Diseases and Immunologic Dysfunction:A Report by a National Science Panel to the Honorable Sam C.Pointer Jr.Coordinating Judge for the Federal Breast Implant Multi-District Litigation(1998).
14 See Faigman DL,Kaye DH,Saks MJ,Sanders J.Science in the Law:Standards,Statistics,and Research Issues,West Group,2002.
15 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 104(a).
16 Id.
17 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 1008.
18 See Daubert,supra note 5,at 592-93;Gen Elec.Co.522 US at 142.
19 See Ex parte Peterson,supra note 4.
20 See Samuel R.Gross,Expert evidence,1991 Wis.L.Rev.1181(1991)(outlining the problems with partisan expert testimony and suggesting reforms using court-appointed experts).
21 See Hyongsoon Kim,Adversarialism defended:Daubert and the judge's role in evaluating expert evidence,34 Colum.J.L.&Soc.Probs.223,226(2000-2001).
22 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 706 Advisory Committee’s Notes.
23《联邦证据规则》第104条a规定:“法院必须决定一切前置性问题有关是否证人具备资格,特权是否存在,或证据是否可采。在决定上述问题时,法院并不受制于证据规则的约束,除非那些规定特权的内容。”
24 See Willging,Supra note 8,at 3.
25 See Sophia Cope,Ripe for revision:a critique of the Federal Rule of Evidence 706 and the use of court appointed experts,39 Gonzaga Law Review,182(2003)
26 See Reilly v.United States,863 F 2d 156(1st Cir,1988).
27 See Association of Mexican-American Educators v.California.No.C-92-3874 WHO.Sept.17,1996.
28 Ex parte communications表示单边交流的意思。“Ex parte”是一个拉丁法律术语,表示“单边的当事人”。
29 See Ass’n of Mexican-American Educators v.California,231 F 3d 572,611(9th Cir.2000).
30 《联邦证据规则》第706条只规定法庭聘请的专家的职责包括:(1)必须就专家做出的任何研究发现告知当事人;(2)可以为任何当事人所进行证言存录:(3)可以被法院或者任何当事人传唤作证;以及(4)可以接受任何当事人交叉询问,包括传唤该专家的当事人。
31 See Rule 706(b)Expert’s Role.The court must inform the expert of the expert’s duties.The court may do so in writing and have a copy filed with the clerk or may do so orally at a conference in which and have a copy filed with the clerk or may do so orally at a conference in which the parties have an opportunity to participate.The expert:(1)must advise the parties of any findings the expert makes;(2)may be deposed by any party;(3)may be called to testify by the court or any party;and(4)may be cross-examined by any party,including the party that called the expert.
32 See Joe S.Cecil&Thomas E.Willging,Accepting Daubert’s invitation:defining a role for court-appointing experts in assessing scientific validity,43 Emory L.J.995,1010(1994).
33 In the federal practice,a comprehensive scheme for court appointed experts was initiated with the adoption of Rule 28of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 1946.See Federal Rules of Evidence 2017-2018 Edition,West Academic Publishing,2017,p165.
34 See Note,Improving Judicial Gatekeeping:Technical Advisors and Scientific Evidence,110 Harv.L.Rev.941,952(1997).
35 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 28:The court may select,appoint,and set the reasonable compensation for an interpreter.The compensation must be paid from funds provided by law or by the government,as the court may direct.
36 See Daubert,supra note 5,at 579,595.
37 Id.
38 See Hall v.Baxter Healthcare Corp.,947 F Supp.1387,1391-95(D.Or.1996).
39 See Laural L.Hooper,Joe S.Cecil,Thomas E.Willging,Assessing causation in breast implant litigation:the role of science panels,64 Law&Contemp.Probs.139,143(2001).
40 See Reilly supra note 26.
41 See Laural L.et al.,supra note 39.
42 Citing Laura L.Hooper,Joe S.Cecil,Thomas E.Willging.Neutral Science Panels:Two Examples of Court-Appointed Experts in the Breast Implants Product Litigation 9(Federal Judicial Center 2001).
43 See Lauren Neergaard,FDA Says No to Silicone Implants,San Fran.Chron.,Jan.9,2004,at 155.
44 231 F.3d 572,611(9th Cir.2000).
45 Id 610-11.
46 See Michael T.Nietzel et al.Juries:the current state of the empirical literature,in psychology and law:the state of the discipline.10 Perspectives in law&psychology,23,38(1999).
47 See Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 706(d).
48 See Developments in the Law—Confronting the New Challenges of Scientific Evidence,108 Harv.L.Rev.1583,1589(1995).
49 See Joe S.Cecil&Thomas E.Willging.Court-Appointed Experts:Defining the Role of Experts Appointed under Federal Rules of Evidence 706,at 12,Washington,DC One Columbus Circle,N.E.,Washington 20002-8003:Federal Judicial Center(1993).
50 See Black,B;Ayala,Fj;Saffranbrinks,C.Science and the law in the wake of Daubert:a new search for scientific knowledge,72 Texas Law Review,715-802(1994).
51 See Daubert supra note 5,at 592-93.
52 See,e.g.,Bert Black supra note 50 at 795-96.(suggesting court-appointed experts as a method for applying the Daubert test);Joe S.Cecil&Thomas E.Willging,Accepting Daubert's Invitation:defining a role for court-appointed experts in assessing scientific validity,43 Emory L.J.995(1994)(advocating increased use of court-appointed experts).
53 Id.
54 See Richard A.Ponser,The Federal Courts:Crisis and Reform 317-18,Cambridge,Mass.Harvard University Press,?1985.See generally Thomas E.Baker,Rationing Justice on Appeal:The Problems of the US Courts of Appeals,St.Paul,Minn.:West Pub.Co.,1994.
55 Karen Butler Reisinger.Court-appointed expert panels:a comparison of two models.32,Indian Law Review,237(1998).
56 See Notes,supra note 34.at 1583,1595.
57 See Joe S.Cecil&Thomas E.Willing.Moore’s Federal Practice:Reference manual on Scientific Evidence,Matthew Bender&Co.Inc.,1994,p547,554.
58 See Nancy J.Brekke,Peter J.Enko,Gail Clavet and Eric Seelau.Of juries and court appointed experts:the effect of nonadversarial versus adversarial testimony,15 Law&Hum.Behav,451(1991).
59 See Joes.Cecil&Thomas E.Willgng,supra note 49 at 97.
60 See Elwood S.Levy,Impartialmedicaltestimony-revisited,34 Temp.L.Q424(1961).
61 See J.Langhein,The German advantage in Civil Procedures.52 U.Chi.L.Rev(1985),pp823,835.