刑事诉讼专门性证据的扩张与规制
吴洪淇刑事诉讼专门性证据的扩张与规制
Expansion and Regulation of Professional Evidence in Criminal Procedure
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：吴洪淇
单位：
中文关键词：证据审查;鉴定意见;专门性证据;专门性问题
英文关键词：review of evidence; expert opinion; professional evidence; professional matters
中文摘要：
在刑事诉讼中，普通性问题与专门性问题之间存在严格界分，二者在认识结构、认知权力分配和相关证据适用标准上都有所不同。2021年《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法〉的解释》确认了专门性问题报告和事故调查报告的证据地位，由此我国解决专门性问题的基本格局将逐渐演变为以鉴定意见为主、多元化证据形式并存。传统的鉴定意见规制模式存在表象化审查的问题；而新证据类型在基础要素质量控制机制方面较为薄弱，会导致裁判者对专门性证据的审查承担更多责任。这要求裁判者对专门性证据真正承担起看门人角色，由过去依赖鉴定意见的形式审查逐渐转向实质审查。目前针对新证据类型的规制框架，还存在参照模式定位不清、合法性不足、以鉴定意见为中心的审查框架与新证据类型之间潜藏诸多冲突等一系列问题，应针对专门性证据构建一个更具包容性的实质审查框架，在专门人员资质、专门性知识和专门性推理过程等方面进一步强化审查。
英文摘要：
In criminal procedure, there is a strict distinction between the common matters and the professional matters in terms of cognitive structure, distribution of the power of cognition, and the related rules of evidence. The Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court Regarding the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of PRC (2021) has confirmed the evidence status of reports on professional matters and reports on accident investigation, thereby establishing the basic pattern of dealing with professional matters in criminal procedure, namely the dominance by expert opinions and the coexistence of multiple forms of evidence. The traditional regulative model of expert evidence has the problem of proxy review. The quality control mechanism for the basic elements of new types of evidence is relatively weak, which means the judge should undertake more responsibilities in reviewing professional evidences. This requires judges to play the role of real gatekeepers and gradually realize the transition from formal review, which depends on expert opinions, to substantive review. The current regulatory framework of new types of evidence still has such problems as the ambiguity of the model of reference, the lack of legitimacy, and numerous conflicts between the traditional review framework centering on expert opinions and new types of evidence. Based on the existing judicial practice, China should reconstruct a more inclusive framework of substantive review of professional evidences to further strengthen the review of the competence and the professional knowledge of experts and their professional inference process.
全文阅读： 点击下载
