期刊文献+

论法官对科学证据的审查——以美国法官的看守职责为视角 被引量:13

Study on the Evaluation of Scientific Evidence by Judges:From the Perspective of Judge’s Gate-keeping Function in US
下载PDF
导出
摘要 科技的发展对法律产生了巨大的影响,科学证据则是这一冲击的直接体现。因此,法官如何审查科学证据保障审判的公正成了人们所关注的问题。美国经过多年的发展,对于科学证据的审查逐渐形成了法官的看守职责。该过程经历了严格的弗赖伊规则,自由的联邦证据规则以及目前占主导地位的多伯特规则等多个阶段。相比而言,我国现有的法律内容比较简单,有待完善。尽管存在诉讼体制等诸多方面的差异,美国相关规则的制定及理论探讨对我国立法完善仍有重要的借鉴意义。 Developments of science and technology have caused immense influence on law. Related questions around scientific evidence show such impaction. So, how to assess the admissibility of scientific evidence becomes an attention - getting topic. After eighty -five years study, American have developed the theories of judges'gate keeping function for scientific evidence, including strict Frye Rule,liberal Federal evidence rule and current Daubert Rule. But related rules in our country are deficiency. Though there are some difference in system of litigation and otherwise between American and China, those rules and theories still have special reference for our legislation improvement.
作者 张君周
出处 《法律科学(西北政法大学学报)》 CSSCI 北大核心 2008年第6期62-69,共8页 Science of Law:Journal of Northwest University of Political Science and Law
关键词 普遍接受性 多伯特规则 看守职责 科学证据 自由裁量权 the general acceptance Daubert Rule gate - keeping function scientific evidence discretion
  • 相关文献

参考文献29

  • 1Ketan Jhaveri, Judicial Gatekeeping in the United States : A Historical Perspective , at http ://cyber. law. harvard. edu/daubert/ book. htm.
  • 2Frye V. United States,293 F. 1013(D. C. Cir. 1923).
  • 3[美]霍华德·科曼,艾利克·史威森.法庭上的DNA[M].何美莹.台北:商业周刊出版股份有限公司,1999.
  • 4Lawrence Kobilinsky, Thomas F Liotti , Jamel Oeser- Sweat, DNA Forensic and Legal Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2003, pp. 201.
  • 5[美]肯尼斯·R·福斯特,彼得·W·休伯.对科学证据的认定:科学证据与联邦法院[M].王增森.北京:法律出版社,2001.
  • 6Lawrence Kobilinsky, Thomas F Liotti , Jamel Oeser- Sweat, DNA Forensic and Legal Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2003, pp. 202 - 203.
  • 7General Electric Co. V. Joiner 522 US. (1997).
  • 8Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U. S. 137(1999).
  • 9Marzaret G. Farrell. Cooinz with Scientific Evidence: The Use of Special Masters, 43 Emory L. J. 927,944 -45 (1994).
  • 10Paul C. Giannelli : Daubert Unbound, 17 Criminal justice55,Fall(2002).

二级参考文献2

  • 1[5]Daubert v. Merrell-Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 113S. C t. 2795,1993.
  • 2[6]McCormick, C. Scientific evidence: Defining a new approach to admissibility, 67 Iowa L. Rev. 879:911-912,1982.

共引文献27

同被引文献135

引证文献13

二级引证文献87

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部