摘要
“伴随着过去50年惊人的科学技术进步,在司法领域,新的事实确认方式已经开始挑战传统的事实认定方法。越来越多的对诉讼程序非常重要的事实现在只能通过高科技手段查明。”事实认定的科技化已经成为现代审判的重要趋势,鉴定结论在诉讼活动的地位也日益凸显。然而鉴定结论在帮助法官探究事实真相的同时,也容易使其落入“科学证据”的陷阱。法官对鉴定结论“盲目”地遵从,不加审查地允许其作为认定案件事实的关键证据,使得大量的虚假错误的鉴定结论和“垃圾科学”混入法庭,严重影响了事实裁判者对案件事实的正确认定。如何防止虚假错误的鉴定结论和“垃圾科学”走入法庭,保障鉴定结论在我国司法活动中发挥应有的作用,是我国诉讼立法和实践都应当直面的问题。消解这一问题的有效路径就是建立健全我国鉴定结论证据能力规则,来规范我国鉴定结论在诉讼程序中的运用。全文分为三部分,约三万八千字:
第一部分概述了鉴定结论证据能力的一般理论。笔者对鉴定结论的称谓与概念、鉴定结论与相关概念的关系、鉴定结论证能力的概念和规范鉴定结论证据能力的必要性,以及鉴定结论证据能力相关因素与内容等问题做了深入阐述。通过解读学界对鉴定结论概念、鉴定结论证据能力概念存在的争议,明确了本文主题词的具体内涵,做到概念清晰,论证有的放矢。追问和回应了为什么要规范我国鉴定结论证据能力,并着重论述了对鉴定结论证据能力应予以规范的因素和内容。
第二部分提出了规范鉴定结论证据能力的一般性规则。关联性规则、传闻规则和非法证据排除规则是规范所有证据的证据能力都适用的一般性规则,鉴定结论作一种证据形式,也不例外。文章从鉴定结论本身属于传闻和鉴定结论依据的基础事实是传闻两大维度详细论述了鉴定结论之传闻规则;非法鉴定结论排除规则论证了对鉴定资料来源、鉴定程序、担保程序和回避程序、鉴定结论形式和内容四方要素的合法性背反对鉴定结论证据能力的影响。
第三部分论述了规范鉴定结论证据能力的特殊性规则。本章分四节分别阐述了鉴定人适格性规则、鉴定结论使用的必要性规则、鉴定结论坚守事实问题规则、鉴定结论可靠性规则。第一节围绕鉴定人适格性问题,比较了两大法系立法状况,分析了我国鉴定人资格规范存在问题,提出了调整和完善我国鉴定人资格规范的对策;第二节指出了只有涉及专门性问题时才能使用鉴定结论,否则鉴定结论不具有证据能力;第三节认为鉴定结论只能止步于事实问题,不能对法律问题染指,否则应否定其证据能力;最后一节强调鉴定结论要获得证据能力并作为诉讼证据使用还必须满足鉴定资料真实性和充足性规则、鉴定结论依赖的科学原理和方法的可靠性规则。
"With the amazing development of science and technology in past 50 years, in the judicial field, the new approach that confirm the facts has begun to challenge the traditional methods. More and more important facts on proceedings can now search through the high-tech ."Findings of fact of science and technology has become an important trend in modern trials, expert conclusions on the status of the proceedings become more and more prominent. However, besides expert conclusions in helping the judge to explore the truth, it is easy to fall into the "scientific evidence"trap. The judge is "blind" to follow the appraisal conclusion , regards it as the key facts of the case evidence without review, making the wrong identification of a large number of false conclusions and "junk science" mixed court. it has seriously affected the case judge correctly identified the facts . How to prevent false conclusions and erroneous identification of "junk science" from court to protect the expert conclusion of judicial activities in China to play its due role is legislation and practices of litigation should confront. Resolution of this issue is to establish an effective appraisal conclusion evidence ability system to regulate the expert conclusion of the application in the proceedings. This paper is divided into three parts, about thirty-eight thousand words:
The first part is an overview of the capacity of expert conclusion of evidence. The author described in depth on the expert conclusion of the title and concept, identification and the relationship between the concepts, conclusions ability and the necessity of standardization the appraisal conclusion evidence ability system, and related factors ,content of the tppraisal conclusion evidence ability system. By interpreting a controversial viewpoint of scholars on the concept of identification, appraisal conclusion evidence ability, defined the specific content of this keyword, so that concept is clear, demonstration targeted. It responds and answers to why to regulate the appraisal conclusion evidence ability, and focuses on the factors and content of evidence of expert conclusions should be standardized.
The second part presented the general rule of evidence of ability to standardize identification of the conclusions. Association rules, the hearsay rule and the Exclusionary Rule are the general rules that to regulate the ability of all the evidence,the conclusions as a form of evidence, is applicable,too. Identification of the conclusions from the hearsay rule which itself is based on hearsay and expert conclusions based on the fact that the two dimensions that hearsay exclusionary rule of expert conclusions are discussed in detail ; illegal evidence exclusion rules demonstrates on identification of sources of information , identification procedures, security procedures and avoidance procedures , conclusions of form and content of the legitimacy ----the four elements of the evidence against the ability of expert conclusion.
The third part discusses the ability to standardize identification of the special rules of evidence conclusions. Divided into four sections, respectively, the expert explained the rules for eligibility, conclusions need to use the rules, conclusions adhere to the rules of fact, conclusions of the reliability rules. Section surrounding the identification of eligible persons, compared the two legal legislation, and to analyze the norms of qualification of problems, proposed adjustments and improve standard of qualification of countermeasures; Section II points out that only when the use of specialized issues involved expert conclusions, or do not have evidence of ability to identify conclusions; Section III that the expert conclusion is stuck with a question of fact and can not encroach on the legal issues, or should deny the evidence of capacity; the final conclusions of an emphasis on identification of capacity to obtain evidence of identification must also meet rules of authenticity and adequacy of the information, conclusions depend on the reliability of scientific principles and methods of rule.
引文
①[美]查理·A·波斯纳著.联邦法院:挑战与改革[M].哈佛大学出版社,1996:244.
②[美]米尔建·R·达马斯卡著.漂移的证据法[M].李学军译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003:200.
③汪建成.中国刑事司法鉴定制度实证调研报告[J].中外法学,2010,(2).
④勒内·坲洛里奥著.错案[M].赵淑美等译.北京:法律出版社,1984:177.
⑤陈永生.我国刑事误判问题透视——以20起震惊全国的刑事实践为样本的分析[J].中国法学,2007,(3).
①《决定》即《全国人民人民代表大会常务委员会关于司法鉴定管理问题的决定》
②刘金友主编.证据法[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2001:172-173.
③江伟主编.证据法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003:479.
④何家弘主编.新编证据[M].北京:法法律出版社,2000:242.
①[前苏联]阿·阿·多勃罗沃里斯基等著.苏维埃民事诉讼法[M].李衍译.法律出版社,1995:221-222.
②《决定》和《关于办理死刑案件审查判断证据若干问题的规定》中已将“鉴定结论”表述为“鉴定意见”。
③杨波.对科学证据的反思——以程序为视角的关照[J].当代法学,2005,(11).
④徐静村著.刑事诉讼法(上)[M].北京:法律出版社,1997:160.
①何家弘.两大法系证据制度比较论[J].比较法研究,2003,(4).
②林山田著.刑事诉讼法[M].台湾汉莱书局有限公司,1981:204.
①张宝生著.《人民法院统一证据法规定》司法解释建议稿及论证[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2008:12.
②俞亮.证据相关性研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008:10.
③约翰·w·斯特龙著.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2004:359-360.
①陈朴生著.刑事证据法[M].三民书局,1979:177.
②卞建林主编.证据法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000:74.
①乔恩·R·华尔兹著.刑事证据大全[M].何家弘等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1993:365.
②丁荣华著.比较刑事证据法各论[M].汉林出版社,1984:279.
③丁荣华著.比较刑事证据法各论[M].汉林出版社,1984:279.
①汪建成.中国刑事司法鉴定制度实证调研报告[J].中外法学,2010,(2).
②陈运财著.直接审查与传闻法则[M].台湾五南图书出版公司,2001:32-33.
①郭华著.鉴定意见证明论[M].人民法院出版社,2008:92.
①R·V·Abandon(1983) 1 WLR 126 at131.转引周湘雄著.英美专家证人制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2006:168.
②Marinovich v·The Queen(1990) 46A Crim R 282 at 301.转引季美君著.专家证据制度比较研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008:170.
①汪建成.刑事鉴定结论研究[J].中国刑事法杂志,2001(2).
②汪建成.刑事鉴定结论研究[J].中国刑事法杂志,2001(2).
③两个规定是指《关于办理死刑案件审查判断证据若干问题的规定》和《关于办理刑事案件排除非法证据若干问题的规定》
①米尔建·R·达马斯卡著.漂移的证据法[M].李学军译.北京:中国政法大学出版社, 2003:212.
①即最高人民法院《关于执行<中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法>若干问题的解释》第142条第2款规定,证人作证前,应当在如实作证的保证书上签名。
②汪建成.司法鉴定基础理论研究[J].法学家,2009,(4).
①杨开湘,胡晓.论司法鉴定人资格[J].中国司法鉴定,2007,(1).
①周湘雄著.英美专家证人制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2006:44-45.
②周湘雄著.英美专家证人制度研究[M].北京:中国检察出版社,2006:46-47.
①杨开湘,胡晓.论司法鉴定人资格[J].中国司法鉴定,2007,(1)
②法国刑事诉讼法第157条,参见罗结珍译.法国刑事诉讼法典[M].中国法制出版社,2006.
③张卫平主编.民事证据制度研究[M].北京:清华大学出版,2004:656.
①胡赐庆.解读司法鉴定人[J].中国司法鉴定,2005,(2).
①陈卫东,李伟.论鉴定结论证据能力[J].中国司法鉴定,2007,(3).
②季美君.英国专家证据可采性研究[J].法律科学,2007,(6).
①汪贻飞.论鉴定结论的证据能力[J].中国司法鉴定,2008,(4).
②何家弘著.司法鉴定导论[M].北京:法律出版社,2000:70.
①季美君.美国专家证据可采性研究[J].法律科学,2007,(6).
①黄维智.鉴定证据的证据能力研究[J].东岳论丛,2005,(11).
①Frye v. United States(D.C. Cir. 1923) 293 F. 1013.
①胡卫平.专家证据的可采性[J].环球法律评论,2005,(6).
②[美]霍德华·科尔曼,埃里克·斯温森著.DNA技术在案件中的应用[M].北京物证技术研究中心,1997:89.
③李昌博,张渝玲:判断“科学证据”的科学性标准[J].河南司法警官职业学院学报,2004,(6).
④胡世澄,倪春乐.论鉴定科学证据的科学基础[J].贵州警官职业学院学报,2007,(3).
⑤Daubert v. MerrellDow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.43 F. 3d 1311, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995).
①Daubert v. MerrellDow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.43 F. 3d 1311, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995).
②[美]肯尼斯·R·福斯特,彼得·W·休伯著.对科学证据的认定——科学知识与联邦法院[M].王增森译.北京:法律出版社,2001:10-15.
③刘晓丹.如何建立我国的鉴定结论采纳规则——以美国专家证言判断标准为参照[J].现代法学,2009,(7).
①徐继军著.专家证人研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004:47.
②[日]田口守一著.刑事诉讼法[M].刘建,张凌等译.北京:法律出版社,2000:238.
③陈学权著.科学证据论——以刑事诉讼为视角[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2007:181.
④许为安.鉴定结论质证初探[A].何家弘主编.证据学论坛:第5卷[C].北京:中国检察出版社,2002:119.
①郭华著.鉴定结论论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007:138.
[1] [美]查理·A·波斯纳著.联邦法院:挑战与改革[M].哈佛大学出版社,1996.
[2] [美]米尔建·R·达马斯卡著.漂移的证据法[M].李学军译.北京:中国政法大学出版社,2003.
[3]江伟主编.证据法[M].北京:法律出版社,2003.
[4]何家弘主编.新编证据[M].北京:法法律出版社,2000.
[5]张宝生著.《人民法院统一证据法规定》司法解释建议稿及论证[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2008.
[6]卞建林主编.证据法学[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2000.
[7]乔恩·R·华尔兹著.刑事证据大全[M].何家弘等译.北京:中国人民大学出版社,1993.
[8]郭华著.鉴定意见证明论[M].人民法院出版社,2008.
[9]季美君著.专家证据制度比较研究[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2008.
[10]张卫平主编.民事证据制度研究[M].北京:清华大学出版,2004.
[11]何家弘著.司法鉴定导论[M].北京:法律出版社,2000.
[12]郭金霞著.鉴定结论适用中的问题与对策[M].中国政法大学出版社,2009.
[13] [美]肯尼斯·R·福斯特,彼得·W·休伯著.对科学证据的认定——科学知识与联邦法院[M].王增森译.北京:法律出版社,2001.
[14]约翰·W·斯特龙著.麦考密克论证据[M].汤维建等译.北京:中国政法大学出社,2004.
[15]徐继军著.专家证人研究[M].北京:中国人民大学出版社,2004.
[16]陈学权著.科学证据论——以刑事诉讼为视角[M].北京:中国政法大学出版社,2007.
[17]郭华著.鉴定结论论[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2007.
[18]许为安.鉴定结论质证初探[A].何家弘主编.证据学论坛:第5卷[C].北京:中国检察出版社,2002.
[1]陈永生.我国刑事误判问题透视——以20起震惊全国的刑事实践为样本的分析[J].中国法学,2007,(3).
[2]汪建成.中国刑事司法鉴定制度实证调研报告[J].中外法学,2010,(2).
[3]杨波.对科学证据的反思——以程序为视角的关照[J].当代法学,2005,(11).
[4]何家弘.两大法系证据制度比较论[J].比较法研究,2003,(4).
[5]汪建成.司法鉴定基础理论研究[J].法学家,2009,(49).
[6]杨开湘,胡晓.论司法鉴定人资格[J].中国司法鉴定,2007,(1).
[7]胡赐庆.解读司法鉴定人[J].中国司法鉴定,2005,(2).
[8]陈卫东,李伟.论鉴定结论证据能力[J].中国司法鉴定,2007,(3).
[9]季美君.英国专家证据可采性研究[J].法律科学,2007,(6).
[10]汪贻飞.论鉴定结论的证据能力[J].中国司法鉴定,2008,(4).
[11]季美君.美国专家证据可采性研究[J].法律科学,2007,(6).
[12]黄维智.鉴定证据的证据能力研究[J].东岳论丛,2005,(11).
[13]胡卫平.专家证据的可采性[J].环球法律评论,2005,(6).
[14]李昌博,张渝玲:判断“科学证据”的科学性标准[J].河南司法警官职业学院学报,2004,(6).
[15]胡世澄,倪春乐.论鉴定科学证据的科学基础[J].贵州警官职业学院学报,2007,(3).
[16]刘晓丹.如何建立我国的鉴定结论采纳规则——以美国专家证言判断标准为参照[J].现代法学,2009,(7).
