对质权如何适用于科学证据——Williams v.Illinois判例及启示  

How the Confrontation Right Apply to Scientific Expertise:The Enlightenment From Williams v. Illinois

作　　者：王跃[1] 

机构地区：[1]西南政法大学,重庆401120

出　　处：《现代法学》2014年第4期184-193,共10页Modern Law Science

基　　金：西南政法大学博士研究生科研创新计划重点项目"刑事鉴定意见质证规则研究";重庆高校物证技术创新团队项目(KJTD201301)

摘　　要：Williams v.Illinois案反映了美国宪法第六修正案的对质权应在多大程度上适用于专家证言形式的科学证据,尤其是一个专家基于另一个未出庭专家制作的法庭科学报告而出庭作证时该如何适用对质条款。美国联邦最高法院在对质权如何适用于科学证据问题上各方观点存在严重分歧,揭示了科学证据与对质权的持续紧张关系、对质权适用于科学证据的各种处理模式以及不同处理模式所显示的刑事诉讼价值取舍与平衡。Williams v.Illinois案的判决意见对中国刑事鉴定意见对质制度的规范化建设无疑具有重要的启发和借鉴意义。The Williams v. Illinois case reflects that to what extent the confrontation right provided in the Sixth Amendment of U. S Constitution can be applied to the scientific expertise, especially when an expert wit- ness testifies on the basis of a forensic lab report prepared by another expert who is absent in the trail. The U. S Supreme Court is widely divided on the topic of how the confrontation right apply to scientific expertise, which reveals the continuous tension and their relation patterns between scientific expertise and confrontation right, al- so shows its selection or balance of criminal procedural virtues. Undoubtedly, the Williams＂ decision has impor- tant instruction and reference value to the normalization of the Chinese criminal appraisal system.

关 键 词：对质权 科学证据 证言性陈述 《联邦证据规则》第703条 

分 类 号：DF73[政治法律—诉讼法学]