论多次鉴定的驱动机制与法律对策

The Causes for and Legal Countermeasures against Repeated Judicial Authentications

本文选择若干个案,剖析多次鉴定中三个主体(当事人、鉴定人和法律人)之间展开激烈博弈的过程,揭示多次鉴定中"当事人唯利启动,鉴定人积极跟进,法律人迁就退让"的严重扭曲的驱动机制。当事人的利益是驱动多次鉴定运转的决定性因素,从理论上否定了所谓"重新鉴定是鉴定意见的重要纠错机制"的观点,否定了多次鉴定的思想根据,同时也发现由法律规定最高鉴定次数的必要性和迫切性。最后提出建立"两次鉴定"制度的构想,即无论原告还是被告,在诉讼中都只能各有一次鉴定的机会;禁止进行第三次鉴定;不允许二审阶段发生任何鉴定活动。如果一审阶段没有发生鉴定事宜,而二审法院认为有必要进行鉴定的,案件应当发回原审法院重审。再审阶段不允许启动任何鉴定事项。案件的事实问题原则上必须在一审阶段查清。

Through analyzing several typical cases,this paper is intended to examine the process of the fierce game between the three parties involved in judicial authentications,namely the litigant,the expert witness,and the legal personnel,in order to reveal the distorted mechanism causing repeated judicial authentications in handling a single case,which are due to the litigant’s pursuit of personal interests,the active involvement of expert witness and the judges’passive yielding to the pressure.The litigant’s pursuit of personal interests has been found to play a decisive role in the application for repeated authentications.This finding proves the idea wrong in theory that the permission of a new judicial authentication is an important mechanism for error correction and thus negates the theoretical foundation for repeated judicial authentications.At the same time,we have also found that it is necessary and urgent to impose legal limits on the number of judicial authentications.On this basis,we propose a“two authentications”system,in which the litigant,plaintiff or defendant,is only allowed two chances of applying for judicial authentication;the third authentication is prohibited;and no authentication is allowed in the second instance.If there is no judicial authentication in the first instance and the court in the second instance thinks it necessary to have an authentication,the case should be returned for a retrial to the court where it was originally tried.In the stage of retrial,no authentication is allowed.The facts involved in the case should principally be a scertained at the stage of the first instance.