语言证据与专家证言:美国司法实践视域下的可采性研究及其启示  

Linguistic Evidence and Expert Testimony:A Study of Admissibility in the Field of Judicial Practice in the United States and Its Implications

作　　者：程乐[1] 王欣 

机构地区：[1]浙江大学外国语言文化与国际交流学院,浙江杭州310058

出　　处：《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2017年第6期181-196,共16页Journal of Zhejiang University:Humanities and Social Sciences

摘　　要：出现在司法实践中的语言证据所指向的是不同载体证据中涉及的语言问题,既可指内容,也可指形式。由于案件中的语言争点往往需要专业领域的分析,因此衍生出了语言类的专家证言。语言类专家意见的做出主体在我国司法语境下可归属于"有专门知识的人"的范畴。依据法律规定,结合我国司法实践的需求,我国"有专门知识的人"在司法实践中可以借鉴普通法法域专家证言适用的某些规定与标准。但正如美国司法实践中意见证据采纳规则所要求的那样,司法实践适用学理研究需要标准,标准的建立需要学界与司法界互相了解,并通过模拟试验的方式确定可适用范围与可采纳标准,进而推向司法实践。In the field of forensic linguistics, ＂linguistic ＂ ＂ evidence is regarded as a type of evidence which is encoded in the form of language. Integrated within the rules of evidence in common law system, ＂ linguistic evidence＂ is frequently interweaved with role or functions of linguists appearing in court： when the content or the form of language in a case is disputable , analyses and conclusions are usually provided by linguists. On one hand, in common law judicial practices, it is common that expert witness is employed by parties （plaintiff and defendant in civil lawsuits~ prosecutor and defendant in criminal cases） of a case to settle technical or specialized disputes~ on the other hand, a judge is not obliged to admit the expert testimony or to decide a case based on the expert testimony. For instance, in the United States, the rules of evidence require that expert testimony should rest on scientific or technical knowledge; therefore, it is controversial whether ＂expert testimony of linguistic evidence＂ is scientific or technical. On the contrary, in the People＇s Republic of China （hereinafter the P. R. C. ）, technical or specialized issues in judicial practices are in principle tackled by identification or examination reports rendered by judicial identifiers who are administrated by judicial authentication institutions. The institutions are set up after being accredited and registered by provincial judicial administrative authorities. Besides, categories of judicial identification and examination are refined by laws （except for handwriting, most ＂linguistic evidence＂ in theory does not fall into the categories）. In 2012, the revisions of the Civil Procedure Law of the P. R.C. and the Criminal Procedure Law of the P. R.C. introduced a new role entitled ＂person with ＇ ＂ （there are expertise scholars who refer to ＂person withexpertise＂ ＂ as expert assistant＂ or directly refer to ＂the person＂ as expert witness＂） into judicial practices. parties may lodge

关 键 词：语言证据 专家证言 证据规则 可采性 美国 司法实践 

分 类 号：D971.2[政治法律—法学] DD915