Abstract:

The expert assistant system helps to make up for the shortcomings of the limited scope of application and the lack of external constraints of the forensic system, and it plays an important role in the identification of specialized issues in the trial. However, in practice, judges generally do not really trust the opinions of expert assistants, resulting in a low rate of use and acceptance of the opinions. The function of the expert assistant system is difficult to exert effectively. The reason is that there is  mispositioning in the role of expert assistants and their opinions, and the arrangement of procedural matters such as review and evaluation is insufficient. In addition, there is a lack of regulations on the legal liability of expert assistants for violations. Therefore, in order to ensure that expert assistants uphold a neutral position and fulfill their obligations of objectivity and impartiality, the independent litigation status, rights and obligations of expert assistants should be clarified. Meanwhile, the pre-trial qualification review and the cross-examination rules during the trial should be strengthened. In this way, judges can comprehensively judge the credibility of the opinions. Finally, we should build a multi-level responsibility system to regulate and sanction the behavior of expert assistants who issue false opinions.

Key words:

specialized issues, dual expert system, credibility, substantive trial

摘要：

专家辅助人制度有助于弥补鉴定制度适用范围有限、外部约束不足的缺陷，对庭审中专门性问题的认定发挥重要作用。但在实践运行中，法官对专家辅助人意见普遍存在不信任的问题，致使其出具意见的使用率及采信度偏低。专家辅助人制度的功能发挥受阻，原因在于既有法律规则对专家辅助人及其意见的定位存在偏差、审查评估等程序性事项安排不足，同时，专家辅助人违规行为的法律责任缺乏规定。为确保专家辅助人秉持中立立场，履行客观公正义务，应明确专家辅助人独立的诉讼地位及权利义务，同时强化庭审前的资格审查以及庭审中的质证规则，促进法官对专家辅助人意见可信性的综合判断，并构建多层次责任体系，对专家辅助人出具的虚假意见进行规约和制裁。

关键词:

专门性问题, 二元专家制度, 可信性, 知识权力, 庭审实质化