A Study On The Difficult Problems In The Expert Testimony Of Zhao Chunhua Case

In 2016,Zhao Chunhua's case of illegal possession of firearms(hereinafter referred to as the Zhao case)aroused widespread concern from all walks of life.In terms of identification,there are three main problems in this case.First,the lack of neutrality of the appraisal subject;and second,the lack of samples identification procedure;third,there are defects in the standard of identification in this case.The standard of appraisal is only recommendation standard,the set of standard value is too low and does not distinguish the different legal liability of guns.The subject of appraisal in this case lacks neutrality.In the process of judicial identification,especially the process of criminal judicial identification,the judicial appraisal institutions and their practitioners should base on their own knowledge and treat the parties fairly and justly.Only in this way can the appraisal opinions be scrutinized by all parties.In the case of Zhao,the accused was captured by public security personnel when his shooting booth was profitable.The identification of the gun involved in the case was carried out by the Tianjin Municipal Public Security Bureau physical evidence Appraisal Center,and the standard for the identification of the involved gun object was prescribed by the public security department.From the beginning of the case,the public security agency always participate in,leading to the lack of neutrality of the appraisal subject.The main manifestations of these problems are the lack of neutrality in judicial expertise institutions,the lack of neutrality in judicial experts and the lack of supervision in judicial expertise.There are both traditional factors and practical reasons for these problems.As a result,it is necessary to build a neutral judicial identification system in line with the national conditions of our country,in order to make all aspects of judicial expertise subject in accordance with the law.We should innovate the judicial appraisal management system,rely on science and technology to change the concept and consider abolishing internal appraisal agencies of investigative and procuratorial organs to avoid the influence of mutual affiliation on neutrality.Besides,we also need to build the mechanism of dynamic supervision,examination and evaluation of judicial expertise,and strengthen the supervision of the work of the appraisal institutions and their practitioners.In this case,the authenticating procedures for the materials were missing during the appraisal process.Authentication is a prerequisite for appraisal.The investigators who are responsible for investigation behaviored inappropriatly in the process of handling cases,for instance,grabbed guns casually,did not number the guns on the scene,did not fill in the labels as required,and did not package the materials according to regulations,ect.These situations may bring about unpredictable risks to the "chain of custody" of the materials.In the past,the most important point of people's attention was the review of appraisal opinions.Therefore,whether the appraiser has the corresponding qualifications,whether the appraisal process conforms to the norms,whether the appraisal quality is as good as possible,and whether the appraiser can testify in court have often become the focus of attention of judges and defense lawyers.However,as the premise of material inspection,the procedure of material identification is ignored easily and invisibly.In order to ensure the identity of the material,the collection procedure,the custody procedure,and the submission procedure of the material are standardized while ensuring the identity of the material.It is very vital to avoid unnecessary pollution.In this case,according to the defense opinion put forward by the defender,the court was in accordance with the search notes,the seizure decision,the seizure list,and the relevant information showed that Zhao Chunhua owned the gun in the case.This is not the true authentication,because these documents only play an auxiliary role in the identification of the material.To identify the authenticity of the case,we should follow these steps: first of all,the source of the gun involved in the case should be verified to confirm that it was owned by the defendant.Secondly,we should strictly observe the standards and procedures of the Regulations for collecting,packing and delivering firearms evidence materials in forensic and conduct a normative inspection of the extraction process of the gun-shaped objects and accessories involved in this case.Finally,the custody chain of the gun-shaped objects should be inspected to ensure that the inspection material was really owned by Zhao Chunhua.There are defects in the standard of identification in this case.For firearms,Gun Control Law of the People's Republic of China adopts the standard of "sufficient to cause casualties or loss of consciousness".However in 2010,The public security organs involved firearms and ammunition performance appraisal work regulations(hereinafter referred to as the firearms and ammunition performance appraisal work regulations)were used to judge the non-standard firearms which could not fire standard ammunition according to the Identification criteria to cause casualty of firearms(hereinafter referred to as the Identification criteria of firearms)adopt the standard of "muzzle than kinetic energy".With regard to the determination of firearms,there is a clear difference between the two provisions,and many firearms identificated by the "muzzle to kinetic energy" criterion do not reach a level that is "sufficient to cause casualties or loss of consciousness".If this standard is followed,the scope of penalties will be broadened.In addition,the Identification criteria of firearms does not distinguish between "firearms" in terms of liability under different laws and is only a recommended standard.In response to these problems,a firearms management system should be established in accordance with the national conditions of our country.We should correctly understand the meaning of "violation of gun management regulations",and adopt the mode of "administrative responsibility" and "criminal responsibility" to deal with the illegal acts of firearms,so as to make the punishment appropriatly,and better adapt to the judicial practice of the cases involving firearms in our country.