Abstract: As a new type of evidence stipulated in the Rules for the Handling of Public Interest Litigation Cases by People’s Procuratorates, the use of expert opinions helps address the difficulties in proving specialized issues in environmental prosecutorial public interest litigation, and can effectively overcome the limitations of judicial cognition and compensate for the lack of professional knowledge in judicial personnel. Empirical analysis shows that the use of expert opinions in environmental prosecutorial public interest litigation has problems such as inconsistent presentation forms of expert opinions, prominent combined use with appraisal opinions, differences in the identities, types, and sources of experts, and low rate of expert appearance in court for cross-examination. To regulate the use of expert opinions and improve their probative power, regulation should be improved from the following aspects: clarifying the relationship between expert opinions and expert assistants’ opinions, defining the order of application between expert opinions and appraisal opinions, unifying the criteria for expert selection, and improving the safeguard mechanisms for expert appearance and cross-examination in court, so as to better serve the practice of prosecutorial public interest litigation.

Key words: expert opinion, prosecutorial public interest litigation, environmental public interest litigation, expert assistant

摘要： 作为《人民检察院公益诉讼办案规则》规定的一项新型证据种类，专家意见的运用有利于应对环境检察公益诉讼专门性问题的证明困境，能够有效克服司法认知的局限性、弥补司法人员专业知识之不足。通过实证分析发现，环境检察公益诉讼专家意见的运用存在呈现形式不统一，与鉴定意见并用情况突出，专家的身份、类型和来源存在差异以及专家出庭质证率低等问题。为规范专家意见的运用，提高专家意见的证明力，应从厘清专家意见与专家辅助人意见的关系、明确专家意见与鉴定意见的运用顺位、统一专家的选任标准以及完善专家出庭质证的保障机制等方面对其进行规范，以便更好地服务于检察公益诉讼办案实践。

关键词: 专家意见, 检察公益诉讼, 环境公益诉讼, 专家辅助人