【作者】 李莹；

【导师】 黄士元；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法律， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 刑事科学证据是一柄双刃剑。一方面,其运用得当能够侦破案件或认定案件事实；另一方面,其运用不当也可能导致错案。本文主要从实体和程序两方面探讨刑事科学证据在我国司法实践中的运用,并尝试在这两方面研究一些问题,使刑事科学证据在我国能恰到好处地得到用武之地。关于刑事科学证据的分类,国内外学者众说纷纭。有学者从实务角度分类,将刑事科学证据用列举法具体细分为若干种类；也有学者从理论角度分类,将刑事科学证据用描述法先下定义再进行归总。笔者认为,刑事科学证据与《刑事诉讼法》规定的七种法定证据形式有相容交叉之处。徐静村教授认为刑事科学证据主要包括鉴定结论和视听资料,笔者认为,除了鉴定结论和视听资料全部包含于刑事科学证据之外,部分刑事科学证据包含于物证与书证中。从实体角度,刑事科学证据的实体标准,是指科学证据的“科学性”应达到何种程度才能进入法庭,作为认定案件事实的根据。美国在科学证据的实体标准问题上着重于对专家证人制度的构建,较为关注专家证言的可靠性,由1923年"Frye v. United States"一案确立的“Frye”规则,到1993年“Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc."一案确立的“Daubert"规则,以及‘’Ultimate Issue Rule"。目前美国对刑事科学证据的实体标准主要是‘’Daubert"规则和“Ultimate Issue Rule"。专家可以依据可靠的原理和方法,在具有充分的事实和数据的基础上,对涉及案件事实的科学证据进行作证；但该科学证据的证据能力有无以及证明力大小的问题由法官或陪审团进行审查和判断。法官或陪审团对刑事科学证据进行自由裁量时,应该审查和判断该刑事科学证据所根据的科学理论与得到该科学理论的科学研究方法是否具有可检验性、可重复性、可信赖性、低误差性。从程序角度,刑事科学证据的程序规则,是指科学证据在收集、保全、鉴定、质证以及认证过程中应依据何种法律程序。首先,在收集阶段,两个问题值得关注：是刑事科学证据的收集全面性问题,即收集科学证据的种类应全面细致,二是刑事科学证据的收集合法性问题,即收集科学证据的手段应合法有效。其次,在保全阶段,有四个注意事项：一是选择合适的容器保存刑事科学证据,二是分开包装科学证据,三是使用干净的包装容器,四是建立证据登记制度。再次,在鉴定阶段,要注意两个问题：一是鉴定人的资质问题,二是鉴定机构的管理问题。最后,在质证认证阶段,必须遵循三个要求：一是规定鉴定人必须出庭作证的义务,二是赋予被告人自行委托鉴定人的权利,三是为法官自由裁量权的执行提供指导。更多还原

【Abstract】 Criminal scientific evidence is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it plays a part in the identification of the facts and the detection of the case; on the other hand, it leads to wrong cases if improperly used. Judging from both the substantive and procedural perspectives, this paper mainly discusses the application of criminal scientific evidence to the judicial practice in our country, and attempts to make a research on some problems in these two aspects, in order to make full use of criminal scientific evidence in our country.On the classification of criminal scientific evidence, opinions of domestic and foreign scholars are divergent. Some scholars classify it from a practical perspective, dividing it into certain types by specific enumeration; but some scholars classify it from a theoretical perspective, sorting it with a definition by particular description. In this paper, criminal scientific evidence and legal evidences provided in "Code of Criminal Procedure" compatibly cross each other. Criminal scientific evidence chiefly includes expert conclusions and audio-visual materials; meanwhile, some criminal scientific evidence belongs to the physical evidence and documentary evidence.From a substantive perspective, the substantive standard of criminal scientific evidence is how "scientific" should the scientific evidence be to enter into the criminal court. On the substantive standard of criminal scientific evidence, the United States focuses on the construction of expert witness system, rather concerned about the reliability of expert testimony, whose rule evolves from the "Frye" Rule established in "Frye v. United States" case in 1923 to the "Daubert" Rule established in "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Inc." case in 1993, and the "Ultimate Issue Rule". On the other words, at present, the substantive standards of criminal scientific evidence in the U.S. are mainly the "Daubert" Rule and "Ultimate Issue Rule". Based on reliable principles and methods, experts can testify the facts of a case if they have sufficient information or figures; but the competency and the corroboration of these scientific evidences depend on the judges’or the jury’s discretion. When judges or a jury consider such a question, they should consider whether the theory and the methods relied on by scientific evidence can be tested, repeated, believed and with few errors.From a procedural perspective, the procedural rules of criminal scientific evidence is how "legal" should the scientific evidence be in the collection, preservation, identification and examination. At first, in the collection phase, two issues should be noticed:first, the integrity of criminal scientific evidence-- the types of collected criminal scientific evidence should be comprehensive and detailed; and second, the legitimacy of criminal scientific evidence--the means of gathering criminal scientific evidence should be legal and valid. In the preservation phase, four issues should be noticed:first, to select appropriate containers to preserve criminal scientific evidence; second, to pack criminal scientific evidence separately; third, to use clean containers; and fourth, to establish a registration system for evidence. In the identification phase, two issues should be noticed:the qualification of the identifier and the management of the authentication institutions. Finally, in the examination phase, three requirements must be followed:first, to provide the obligation of the identifier attending in court; second, to entitle the accused to engage their own identifier; and third, to give guidance to the judges on exercising fully their discretion.更多还原