美国法庭科学加强之路回顾(2009-2017)——以“科学证据在诉讼中的采纳”为对象

NAS report review(2009-2017): Admitting forensic evidence in criminal proceedings

为应对法庭科学面临的有效性与可靠性危机,美国国家科学院携多个部门机构于2009年初发布了题为《美国法庭科学的加强之路》的报告(NAS报告)。报告指出当前法庭科学原理/方法存在的不足及法庭科学实践中的欺诈等问题,并指出法庭一贯遵从法庭科学证据,未尽"守门人"职责。最后,NAS报告提出了改进法庭科学的建议。通过对"法庭科学证据在诉讼中的采纳"这一主题的案例分析,可以认为:NAS报告发布8年之后,法院采纳法庭科学证据的一贯做法并未发生根本性变化。换言之,NAS报告改革贯彻不力,对司法实践的影响极为有限,甚至可以忽略不计。NAS自身缺乏强制性、明确性及对抗式司法体制等是个中原因。现阶段NAS改革成果虽未获成功,但法庭科学加强之路仍需继续前行。未来深化法庭科学改革的举措可以从以下三个方面入手:重视法庭科学领域中诉讼参与主体的作用、发挥国家法庭科学委员会(NCFS)在未来深入推进法庭科学改革中的作用、认真对待联邦最高法院把法庭科学证据可采性纳入对质条款规制范畴的司法实践。

NAS/NRC issued the Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States： A Path Forward in early 2009 in order to settle the theoretical and practical crises in forensic science disciplines, such as the deficiencies in scientific theories or methods, laboratory fraud and etc. NAS Report also disclosed that several forensic science disciplines were not sufficiently founded or scientifically validated, which brought about the reliability issue. In addition, NAS Report was critical of courts＇ deference to forensic evidence. NAS Report conclusively made 13 core suggestions. By looking through the cases related to the use of forensic evidence delivered after NAS Report, we could be persuaded that NAS Report did not change the status quo, and courts still tended to admit flawed forensic testimony due to some systematic reasons in adversarial judicial system and the insufficiency in NAS Report itself. However, this current unsuccessful reform by NAS Report still meant significantly to the United States even overseas. Its critiques on forensic evidence＇s reliability stillremain unanswered to common law jurisdictions. The Path Forward is still needed. The possible concerns could be referred as follows： taking the stakeholders in criminal justice system seriously, relying on the National Committee on Forensic Science in deeply and widely advancing future forensic science reform, and rethinking the U.S. Supreme Court＇s practice of including the admissibility of forensic evidence into Confrontation Clause.