专家证言的概念性挑战  

Conceptual challenge of expert testimony

作　　者：罗纳德·J·艾伦 汪诸豪[3,4,5] 

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学证据科学研究院外国专家咨询委员会 [2]中国政法大学诉讼法研究院 [3]2011计划司法文明协同创新中心,中国政法大学证据科学研究院 [4]美国印第安纳大学布鲁明顿分校法学院 [5]美国宾夕法尼亚大学法学院

出　　处：《证据科学》2014年第1期94-119,共26页Evidence Science

基　　金：国家2011计划司法文明协同创新中心研究成果

摘　　要：本文重点考察了专家知识与案件审理模式之间的关系。总体而言,案件审理是一种教育性活动,其间,事实认定者应能够理解、处理和思考证据,并得出理性的结论。这一过程反映了审理中准确事实认定的根本重要性,若没有准确的事实认定,权利和义务便是空谈。专家证据通常涉及一种遵从性而非教育性的诉讼程序模式,从这一点上来说其有悖于常规的审判理想状态。本文讨论了这一发展过程、其形成原因及其后果。若要实现审判的理想状态,那么替代性措施(即所有证据应以教育性模式呈现)则更为优越。如果证据无法以此种方式(教育性模式)呈现,那么在审理过程中通过证据所展现的待证事项便无法与常规的审判理想状态保持一致。The relationship between expert knowledge and the trial pattern is examined. In general, trials are educational events in which the fact finder is expected to comprehend, process, and reflect on the evidence, and to reach rational conclusions as a result. This process reflects the fundamental importance of the accuracy of fact finding at trial, without which rights and obligations are essentially meaningless. Expert evidence often involves a deferential rather than an educational mode of proceeding and to that extent can be in opposition to the normal aspirations of trials. This article discusses the development process, forming reason and its consequences. The altemative is advanced that all evidence should be presented in an educational mode if the aspirations of trials are to be realized. If evidence cannot be presented in such a pattern, then the matter to which the evidence is pertinent plausibly cannot be litigated consistent with the normal aspirations of trials.

关 键 词：专家证言 事实认定准确性 遵从模式 教育模式 审判的理想状态 

分 类 号：D915.13[政治法律—诉讼法学]