Research On The Authentication Of Criminal Expert Opinions

As the criminal justice system reform centered on trial deepens,judicial authorities at all levels are striving to establish a new pattern of criminal proceedings with trial at the center,trial hearing at the center,and evidence at the center,promoting the substantive process of trial hearings.As a type of legal evidence,expert testimony provide enormous assistance in discovering and determining facts of a case with their scientific and objective characteristics,but they have also caused many wrongful convictions in practice.Improving judges’authentication level of criminal expert testimony and promoting substantive authentication of criminal expert testimony in court is necessary for the substantive process of trial hearings and an effective means of pursuing fair and just trial results.This article discusses theoretical foundations,practical issues,extraterritorial experience,and problem resolution in detail.Firstly,we analyze the theoretical basis for the authentication of criminal expert testimony.The relevant theories of criminal expert testimony authentication can be divided into two parts:the concept and characteristics of criminal expert testimony,and the concept and features of criminal expert testimony authentication.Criminal expert testimony are inferences or conclusions reached by experts based on scientific principles and methods regarding specialized issues in criminal cases.These opinions possess the characteristics of legality,scientificity,objectivity,and subjectivity.The authentication of criminal expert testimony in criminal proceedings refers to the judicial activity in which judges,as adjudicators,analyze and study evidence presented in court by both the prosecution and the defense,as well as evidence obtained by the people’s court through legal investigation,mutually cross-examine the evidence,distinguish truth from falsehood,and determine whether the evidence can serve as a basis for a verdict according to certain standards.The subject of criminal expert testimony authentication is the judge acting as the adjudicator;the object is the expert testimony;and the contents include the evidential capacity and probative value of the expert testimony,including the qualifications of the expert,the scientific methods relied upon,and the process of judicial activities.The authentication process of criminal expert testimony is a legal activity with rich content and strong professionalism,and the results of cross-examination will have an impact on the authentication activity.Next is an empirical analysis of the issue of authentication of criminal expert testimony in China.By sorting out 50 criminal cases related to expert testimony in practice,the problems of authentication of criminal expert testimony can be summarized as follows:first,in the face of flawed expert testimony,judges failed to effectively filter them after review and judgment and adopted them;second,when the expert testimony themselves are not problematic,judges made errors in using them;third,in order to ascertain the facts of the case,judges made a determination without conducting a examination,resulting in wrongful convictions.Regarding the problems that exist in the review and judgment of expert testimony,the deep-rooted reasons behind them can be summarized as follows:first,judges subjectively have bias in their understanding of expert testimony,blindly trusting the scientific and objective nature of expert testimony and ignoring the necessity of substantive review of expert testimony;second,judges objectively lack the corresponding knowledge and experience,and are unable to review and judge the specialized knowledge involved in expert testimony;third,the pre-certification cross-examination procedure is merely a formality and fails to fully disclose the substantive content of expert testimony for the authentication by judges.The third aspect is an investigation of the certification system for scientific evidence outside the jurisdiction.The investigation reveals that the expert opinion in Anglo-American legal systems is an opinion witness testimony,and both the prosecution and defense have the right to request identification.The scientific content relied upon by identification includes scientific principles and personal experience.However,in civil law legal systems,identification opinions are classified as independent evidence and are made by registered identification personnel within professional identification institutions commissioned or appointed by judges or prosecutors based on scientific knowledge,possessing relatively strong objectivity.Regarding the authentication mode,the Anglo-American legal systems base the authentication of expert opinion on cross-examination,and through the active cross-examination by both parties,the judge and the jury can separately certify the evidential and probative value of the evidence.On the other hand,in civil law legal systems,the authentication of the identification opinion is based on the judge-led inquiry,and the judge independently certifies the evidential and probative value of the identification conclusion.Regarding the authentication rules,Anglo-American legal systems focus on examining the reliability and suitability of expert opinion,while civil law legal systems emphasize the necessity and relevance of the identification conclusion.The fourth part of this paper presents a resolution path to the issue of certification of expert testimony in our country.Based on an analysis of practical problems related to the certification of identification opinions and combined with external observations,this paper attempts to promote the substantive certification of identification opinions through the establishment of multidimensional and substantive review standards for expert testimony,the improvement of the system of criminal expert jurors,and the enhancement of the substantive evidentiary level of identification opinions.The establishment of multidimensional and substantive review standards for expert testimony includes two aspects:the review standards for identification subjects and the principles and methods of identification.The review standards for identification subjects refer to the improvement of review standards for identification subjects from aspects such as the qualification,hardware conditions,institutional operations,quality control of identification agencies,and the qualifications,abilities,reputation,and neutrality of identification personnel.The improvement of certification standards for identification principles and methods includes refining the review standards for scientific principles or technical methods.In addition to reviewing the principles relied upon by conventional identification methods based on industry norms,attention should be paid to reviewing the principles and methods from the aspects of scientificity,reliability,and neutrality when certifying identification opinions in emerging or niche fields.At the same time,attention should also be given to reviewing the application process of identification principles.The enhancement of the substantive evidentiary level of identification opinions includes two aspects:first,the improvement of the conditions for identification personnel to appear in court,and the establishment of a court appearance mechanism with court appearance as the norm and non-appearance as the exception to enhance the appearance rate of identification personnel;second,the improvement of the supporting system for expert assistants to enhance the evidentiary effect of expert assistants,specifically including the improvement of admission standards for expert assistants,optimization of channels for selecting expert assistants,and expanding the scope of expert assistant certification.