| 89 | 0 | 18 |
| 下载次数 | 被引频次 | 阅读次数 |
科学证据的适用在提高案件认定准确度以及防止错案发生方面具有一定的价值。但是，科学证据又是一把“双刃剑”,其也会导致错案发生，其中导致错案发生的诱因包括：鉴定过程不规范，侦查、司法人员对科学证据认知的偏差，科学证据的鉴定原理、技术不成熟，等等。同时，基于相关侦查、司法人员对科学证据的迷思，因科学证据发生的错案很难纠正。在科学证据对刑事案件认定的负面作用方面，中美两国基于不同的诉讼模式，具有一定的差异之处，也存在一定的共同点。因此，应当趋利避害，借鉴美国科学证据制度适用的有益因素，针对我国科学证据在刑事案件中的适用，在法官对科学证据的审查、科学证据鉴定启动的模式等多方面予以综合规范。
Abstract：The application of scientific evidence has certain value in improving the accuracy of case determination and preventing wrongful convictions. However, scientific evidence is also a double-edged sword, which can lead to the occurrence of wrongful cases. The causes of wrongful cases include non-standard appraisal processes, deviations in the understanding of scientific evidence by investigators and judicial personnel, and immature appraisal principles and techniques of scientific evidence, all of which can lead to wrongful cases. Meanwhile, based on the misconceptions of relevant investigators and judicial personnel about scientific evidence, it is difficult to correct wrongful cases that occur due to scientific evidence. In terms of the negative impact of scientific evidence on the determination of criminal cases, China and the United States have certain similarities and differences based on different litigation models. Therefore, we should seek benefits and avoid harm,draw on the beneficial factors of the application of the scientific evidence system in the United States,and comprehensively regulate the application of scientific evidence in criminal cases in China,including the mode of judge's review of scientific evidence and the initiation of scientific evidence appraisal.
[1]JASANOFF S.Science and the Courts:Advice for a Troubled Marriage [J].Natural Resources & Environment,1986,2(2):3-52.
[2]张继成.论命题与经验证据和科学证据符合[J].法学研究，2005(6):33-51.
[3]达马斯卡.漂移的证据法[M].李学军，刘晓丹，姚永吉，等，译.北京：中国政法大学出版社，2003:200.
[4]张南宁.科学证据论[J].证据科学，2019(3):261-274.
[5]HANS V P,SAKS M J.Improving Judge & Jury Evaluation of Scientific Evidence [J].Daedalus,2018,147(4):164-180.
[6]史长青.科学证据的风险及其规避[J].华东政法大学学报，2015(1):119-128.
[7]刘静.《刑事诉讼法》第四次修改背景下的证据制度完善研究[J].浙江工商大学学报，2024(4):29-40.
[8]苏志远.刑事司法的“专门知识”系统：扩张原理与调控逻辑[J].甘肃政法大学学报，2024(3):143-156.
[9]何家弘.当今我国刑事司法的十大误区[J].清华法学，2014(2):47-67.
[10]董秀婕.刑事技术鉴定证据价值司法现状分析[J].东北农业大学学报(社会科学版),2007(1):110-112.
[11]DOBBIN S A,GATOWSKI S I,EYRE R J,et al.Federal and State Trial Judges on the Proffer and Presentation of Expert Evidence [J].The Justice System Journal,2007,28(1):1-5.
[12]THOMPSON W C,FORD S.DNA Typing:Acceptance and Weight of the New Genetic Identification Tests [J].Virginia Law Review,1989,75(1):45-108.
[13]MOENSSENS A A.Novel Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases:Some Words of Caution [J].The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,1993,84(1):1-21.
[14]GIANNELLI P C.Criminal Discovery,Scientific Evidence,and DNA [J].Vanderbilt Law Review,1991,44(4):791-825.
[15]BECKHAM J C,ANNIS L V,GUSTAFSON D J.Decision Making and Examiner Bias in Forensic Expert Recommendations for Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity [J].Law and Human Behavior,1989,13(1):79-87.
[16]INBAU F E.Scientific Evidence in Criminal Cases.II.Methods of Detecting Deception [J].Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,1934,24(6):1140-1158.
[17]MNOOKIN J L.Scripting Expertise:The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Reliability [J].Virginia Law Review,2001,87(8):1723-1845.
[18]COLE S A.More than Zero:Accounting for Error in Latent Fingerprint Identification [J].The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,2005,95(3):985-1078.
[19]GIANNELLI P C.The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence:Frye v.United States,a Half-Century Later [J].Columbia Law Review,1980,80(6):1197-1250.
[20]陈邦达.科学证据质证程序研究——基于中美两国的比较[J].现代法学，2017(4):150-165.
[21]福斯特，休伯.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，2001:68-69.
[22]张斌.科学证据采集基本原理研究[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社，2012:154.
[23]刘科学.刑事诉讼中鉴定人出庭制度的运行现状及其改进——以88份裁判文书为研究样本[J].中国应用科学，2021(5):149-161.
[24]张勇，钱岩.鉴定人、有专门知识的人出庭制度构建——以天津市法院系统实践探索为基础[J].法律适用，2018(19):56-64.
[25]王跃.对质权如何适用于科学证据——Williams v.Illinois判例及启示[J].现代法学，2014(4):184-193.
[26]The Harvard Law Review Association.Admitting Doubt:a New Standard for Scientific Evidence [J].Harvard Law Review,2010,123(8):2021-2042.
[27]孙笑侠.法律家的技能与伦理[J].法学研究，2001(4):3-18.
[28]罗科信.刑事诉讼法[M].24版.吴丽琪，译.北京：法律出版社，2003:261.
[29]The Harvard Law Review Association.Developments in the Law:Confronting the New Challenges of Scientific Evidence [J].Harvard Law Review,1995,108(7):1481-1605.
[30]陈永生.论刑事司法对鉴定的迷信与制度防范[J].中国法学，2021(6):264-283.
[31]宋远升.法官论[M].北京：法律出版社，2012:55-56.
(1)在著名的米尔格拉姆的实验中,就针对被实验者对权威专家的服从性予以验证,以此来论证权威在权力—服从关系中的强制程度。此实验表明,被实验者基于对权威的服从,愿意接受专家的意见,使得这种知识性权力效果得到较好的发挥。然而,如果实验者表现得像外行人,并且使被实验者相信这就是外行人下的实验指令,那么,该实验的效果就有相当大程度的下降,实验的完成效果并不如专家主持时好,完成实验的概率只有80%左右。该实验表明,知识性权力来源取决于权力对象对权力掌控者权威地位的认可。权力对象认可特定领域的知识性权力掌握者的权威资格,认为其有能力对该领域的事务作出命令、指导或者建议,这是知识性权力发挥功效的关键之一。
(2)State v.Caldwell,322 N.W.2d 574 (Minn.1982).
(3)The Innocence Project,at http://www.innocenceproject.org/(last visited on May 8,2024).斯蒂芬·考恩斯因枪伤一名警官而被判处30—45年徒刑,服刑6年半后获释。考恩斯只是根据指纹和目击者的证据被定罪,但定罪后的DNA测试表明,他不是犯罪者。波士顿警察局随后承认指纹证据是错误的,这使考恩斯成为第一个被指纹证据定罪但被DNA证据证明无罪的人。
(4)Commonwealth v.Loomis,110 A.257 (Pa.1920);Albert S.Osborn,Proof of Finger-Prints,26 Am.Inst.Crim.L.& Criminology 587,587 (1935).
(5)No.1508/87 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1989).
(6)根据《刑事诉讼法》第187条的规定,有必要出庭的,鉴定人应当出庭作证。经人民法院通知,鉴定人拒不出庭作证的,鉴定意见不得作为定案的根据。
基本信息:
DOI：10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1337/c.2025.02.009
中图分类号:D925.2
引用信息:
[1]宋远升.科学证据之于案件的迷思、悖反与建构[J].浙江工商大学学报,2025,No.191(02):89-100.DOI:10.14134/j.cnki.cn33-1337/c.2025.02.009.
基金信息:
国家社会科学基金一般项目“未成年人罪错行为处理专门立法研究”(23BFX176)