主管:中华人民共和国司法部
主办:司法鉴定科学研究院
ISSN 1671-2072  CN 31-1863/N

中国司法鉴定 ›› 2023 ›› Issue (6): 23-30.DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-2072.2023.06.004

• 专题研讨:司法鉴定意见的技术性审查 • 上一篇    下一篇

技术性证据专门审查法律地位的反思与重构

朱梦妮   

  1. 中国矿业大学 文法学院,北京 100083
  • 收稿日期:2023-06-10 出版日期:2023-11-15 发布日期:2023-11-16
  • 作者简介:朱梦妮(1988—),女,副教授,博士,硕士研究生导师,主要从事证据法学、刑事诉讼法学、司法鉴定制度研究。E-mail:18810669385@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    教育部产学合作协同育人项目(220602511094448)。

The Reflection and Reformation of Legal Status of Specialized Review of Technical Evidence

ZHU Mengni   

  1. School of Law and Humanities, China University of Mining and Technology, Beijing 100083, China
  • Received:2023-06-10 Published:2023-11-15 Online:2023-11-16

摘要: 技术性证据专门审查是检察机关的一项重要业务,代表检察科技与检察业务的深度融合。在“四大检察”协同发展的要求下,技术性证据专门审查是检察机关法律监督职能的一种技术性诠释,能够进一步强化法律监督的精准化意蕴,应当具有独立的法律地位。面对技术性证据在证明力或可信度上的支配优势,专门审查是教育模式的制度性转化,契合事实认定的理想状态,其向“外脑”的积极合理借力也能够在最大程度上降低运行成本。技术性证据审查意见可以作为证据使用,这符合立法原意,不违背学理要求,还能够形成专门知识之间的理性互动关系。指向专门性问题的审查意见,经审慎评判后可直接采用;指向鉴定意见等技术性证据材料的审查意见,则属于弹劾证据,适用时应当遵循“有限可采性”规则,需附属于已有的或后续补充的技术性证据发挥证明作用。

关键词: 技术性证据, 专门审查, 教育模式, 有限可采性

Abstract: The specialized examination of technical evidence is an important work of the procuratorial organs, and it is a deep integration of procuratorial technology and procuratorial operation. Under the requirements of the coordinated development of the four major procuratorates, the specialized examination of technical evidence has a wide range of work fields and should have an independent legal status. It is a technical interpretation of the legal supervision power of the procuratorial organs, which can further strengthen the precise meaning of procuratorial supervision. In the face of the dominance of technical evidence in terms of probative power or credibility, specialized examination is the institutional transformation of the educational mode, which is in line with the ideal state of fact determination, and its active and reasonable borrowing from the “external brain” can also reduce the operating cost to the greatest extent.  Examination opinions on technical evidence can be used as evidence, which is in line with the original legislative intent and does not violate academic requirements; evidence qualification gives symbolic power to examination opinions and can also form a rational interaction between specialized knowledge. Examination opinions on specialized issues can be directly adopted after careful evaluation. As impeachment evidence, examination opinions on technical evidence should follow the “limited admissibility” rule in their application, and generally need to play a probative role in ancillary or subsequently supplemented technical evidence.

Key words: technical evidence, specialized examination, educational mode, limited admissibility

中图分类号: