诉讼中的技术顾问制度研究

【作者】 土绍芳；

【导师】 胡世澄；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 诉讼法， 2004， 硕士

【摘要】 将科学技术运用到诉讼中来，使得司法证明的手段变得文明而理性。司法鉴定制度的产生正是为了满足解决案件中的专门性问题的需要，发展到今日，其在诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。随着现代生活的日益复杂，在刑事诉讼领域，犯罪手段日益高明，很大程度是因为犯罪者绝不比科学家缺少创新能力。一旦发明出新的科学技术，犯罪者就开始着手开发利用。在民事诉讼领域，大量涉及高科技的纠纷层出不穷，如医疗事故、环境污染等，都需要以科技手段来查明事实真相。然而随着社会分工的日益细化，仅有司法鉴定制度还不足以解决诉讼中所涉及的—切科学技术问题，并且司法鉴定制度自身在运行过程中也出现了一些问题。在此基础上，我们看到近几十年来，在一些国家的诉讼制度中又出现了技术顾问制度。同为科学技术专家，尽管技术顾问与鉴定人在若干方面存在相似之处，但在诉讼地位、职责、权利义务等方面是明显区别于鉴定人的。技术顾问制度的主要功能在于对鉴定过程的监督以及帮助诉讼各方审查判断鉴定结论，其职责涉及到案件中方方面面的技术问题，但不负责具体的鉴定工作。 技术顾问制度是一个新兴的制度，它并非普遍存在于世界各国的诉讼制度中。概观当今世界各国立法，主要有英国、我国香港地区、意大利以及我国通过立法设立了这一制度。而各国立法对技术顾问的规范又有所不同，大体上分为两大类。英国民事诉讼中的技术陪审员由法官聘请，为法官服务，诉讼地位独立且至高无上。我国香港地区的裁判委员与英国的技术陪审员相类似。在此，笔者称之为法官型技术顾问，它们主要存在于英美法系国家。意大利刑事诉讼中的技术顾问由公诉人或当事人聘请，站在他们的立场，为其服务。我国民事诉讼行政诉讼中的技术顾问与意大利的相类似。在此，笔者称之为当事人型技术顾问，它们主要存在于大陆法系国家。总体而言，两类不同的技术顾问制度都有其优劣，都是与各自的司法制度，诉讼制度以及司法鉴定制度相协调的，解决各自问题的。 技术顾问制度的产生绝非偶然，它是有一定原因的。一方面技术顾问制度的产生有赖于司法鉴定制度的发展成熟，即将科学技术运用于诉讼已有了久远而成熟的历史；另一方面，技术顾问制度的产生可以部分解决两大法系各自鉴定制度中存在的问题，如对英美法系专家证人制度下专家证言不客观问题的解决，就需要一名客观中立的专家来帮助法官判断证言的科学客观性;对大陆法系鉴定制度下鉴定人常常成为‘事实的法官”而左右诉讼的局面以及不注重对当事人鉴定程序中书俐的保障问题，就需要一名站在当事人立场的专家来平衡上述情形。并且不同种类的技术顾问制度和不同的诉讼制度是相融合的，在英美法系下就产生法官型的技术顾问以此体现诉讼竞技观的松动，在大陆法系下就产生当事人型技术顾增加诉讼中的对抗，这也反映了两大法系的某种融合.就技术顾问以此来问制度运行机理来看，技术顾问制度与鉴定制度同时存在着“矛盾”关系和“同胞兄弟”关系.在对诉讼中的科学证据进行审查判断过程中，由于诉讼各方不具备专业知识要对科学证据的审查事实上是十分困难的，因此有学者惊呼:科学证据已成为美国诉讼案件中最有投机性和主观性的成东技术顾问的出现可以形成同为科学专家的技术顾问来审视鉴定人的工作的局面，同时在专家之间也可形成科学对话机制，符合科学评断的基本原则。技术顾问出现于诉讼中就使得鉴定结论的质证更加充分、也更有实效。 我国通过《民事诉讼证招勉组》和《行政诉讼证据蜘侧》这两个司法解释规定了技术顾问制度，幼少寸于我国的诉讼制度具有重大意义，它是我国证据制度的一沐浏举.它一方面可以解决我国现行诉讼制度下对鉴定结论质证不充分问题，另一方面可以保障当事人在鉴定过程中的程序性权利，并且为我国今后在立法上规教粉颐问制度奠定了一定的基础.但是我国目前的技术顾问制度还存有问题，主要是体系还不完善，适用面也很窄，此外还没有上升到立法的高度.通过比较分析技术顾问制度所蕴含的法理，我国引进技术顾问制度就有了墓本的依据，也有了可资借鉴的情形.我国引进技术顾问制度也是有一定的必要性和可能性的.由于我国与意大利在法律传统、司法改革方向上有相似之处，因此笔者建议借鉴意沐俐技术顾问的相关做法，引进当事人型的技术顾问，通过立法完善规定我国的技术顾问制度. 对于这样一个新兴的制度，研究者不多，甚至连法律称谓都不统一笔者在此所作的研究不能说是刑纽性的，但也有不少创新之处.其目的是为该制度今后的研究奠定一定的基础，并为我国技术顾问制度的设立提出若干建议.因此全文的论述就围绕技术顾问制度体系构建来写作，第一部分为概述，第二部分进行比较法研究，第三部分为具体构建我国的技术顾问制度.当然，由于笔者才疏学浅，许多观点还有不妥之处，在此也求教于大家.更多还原

【Abstract】 SUMMERYIt is the use of the science and technology that make the method of the judicial testification become civilized and rational. The appearance of the Forensic Examination Institution which is designed to solve the scientific problems in the cases. Up to now, it is playing more and more important role in the lawsuit. With the complexity of the modern life, in the actions penal, the criminal method is getting more and more complicated, because the criminal is not less creative than the scientist mostly. Once the new technology is invented, the criminal will use it at first time. In the civilian actions, most disputes related to the technology which have been improving, such as medical accident and environment pollutions, these all need to identify the truth in the way of the technology. But according to the social work plan, the Forensic Examination Institution can not solve all scientific problems in the actions, and at the same time the Forensic Examination Institution itself is not the perfect one. Therefore, the Assessor Institution appears in some nations in recent years. As the scientists, even the assessor and the identifier have many similar facts, but the status among the action, duty, right and obligation are quite different. The function of the Assessor Institution is to supervise the procedure of the identification and help to appreciate the value of the identification conclusion.The Assessor Institution is a new thing .It is not widely used in worldwide nations. Look at the law in the worldwide, only Great Britain, HongKong SAR, Italy, and China have passed the law of the Assessor Institution. In action civil in Great Britain, the assessor is invited by the judge, they serves for the judge, and he is independent and in higher position. The assessor in HK SAR is similiar to the GB. The writer names them judge-invited type assessor. They are most in Anglo-American law nations. In action penal in Italy, the assessor is invited by the procurator or the litigant, he works for them and servesfor them. China’s is similar to Italy’s. The writer names them the litgant-invited type assessor. They are most exists in continental law system nations. All together, the two types of the Assessor Institution have good points and defects, they all co-exists in their judicial system, action system, and the Forensic Examination Institution.The appearance of the Assessor Institution, is not occasionally. The reasons are on the one hand, the maturity of the Forensic Examination Institution, that is the history of the usage of the science in the action is long, on the other hand, the Assessor Institution can solve the problem of the Forensic Examination Institution .In Anglo-American law system nations, the expert evidence is not objective, they need an independent expert to help the judge to appreciate the science of the conclusion. In the continental law system nations, the identifier is the "judge of the fact ", more often they control the action, and the procedure right of the litigant is negligent They need an experts working for the litigant to balance it. And different types of Assessor Institution are be mixed together with the different action system, in the Anglo-American law system nations the appearance of the Assessor Institution displays the change of the ’the Theory of Sporting justice". In the continental law system nations, the appearance of the Assessor Institution will improve the antagonism. The Assessor Institution and the Forensic Examination Institution are "enemy relation" and "brotherhood relation" at the same time. In the action, the lack of the scientific knowledge, it is difficult for the parties to appreciate the scientific evidence. Some scholars claimed the scientific evidence is the most speculative and subjective .The appearance of the assessor can change the situation, the experts can dialogue with each other, the way is scientific. And in this way, the cross -examination of the identification conclusion is more effective and positive.In China, we have passed the Rules of Eviden更多还原