Abstract: Criminal proceedings in the digital age must address an increasing number of issues involving specialized technical fields. The proper application of specialized review opinions on technical evidence benefits both the enhancement of evidence proof capabilities of the  procuratorial organs and the improvement of factual accuracy in case determinations by courts. However, the nature of evidence of these opinions lacks legislative confirmation, rendering their judicial application legally unstable. From the perspective of evidence law, recognizing their nature as evidence aligns with their intrinsic attributes and follows a tripartite logic: adhering to technical specificity, reducing evaluation risks, and strengthening supervisory functions. Judicial practice should prioritize constructing review rules to avoid superficial court examination under the misrepresentation of “knowledge-power” discourse. The specific points can be focusing on evidence categorization, case file transfer and access, cross-examination of personnel, and evaluation standards, which can contribute to refining China’s criminal evidence framework and advancing the modernization of the rule of law with Chinese characteristics.

Key words: technical evidence, specialized review opinion, procuratorial organ, nature of evidence, judicial application

摘要： 数字时代的刑事诉讼需要应对更多涉及其他专业技术领域的问题。技术性证据专门审查意见的正确适用对于强化检察机关司法证明能力和提升人民法院认定案件事实准确性均有裨益。检察机关技术性证据专门审查意见的证据性质并未得到立法确认，司法适用的基础不牢。但从证据法基本理论观察，承认其证据性质并予以司法适用符合证据定义等内在属性，且具有契合技术性特质、降低审查评断风险和强化监督职能三重逻辑。在此基础上，司法实践需重点关注审查规则之建构，以避免“知识-权力”话语错误表现下的法院审查流于形式。具体路径可从证据归属、移送与阅卷、相关责任人员出庭质证和证据审查评断切入，以此促进技术性证据专门审查制度之完善，进而为健全刑事证据法体系、推进中国式法治现代化贡献力量。

关键词: 技术性证据, 专门审查意见, 检察机关, 证据性质, 司法适用