审判法官应如何考量司法鉴定证据

How trial judges should think about forensic science evidence

不可否认,美国法庭上提出的司法鉴定证据存在着严重问题。由美国顶尖科学家们调研并撰写的2009年美国国家科学院(NAS)法庭科学报告和2016年美国总统科技顾问委员会(PCAST)报告表明,司法鉴定业务亟需开展科学检验。两份报告还指出,由鉴定人员及其拥护者们提出的许多强烈主张都具有误导性,原因是他们的主张缺乏科学数据的支撑。修缮司法鉴定证据的权力掌握在司法机关手中。广大科学界、2009年NAS报告和2016年PCAST报告可为审判法官评估科学可靠性提供有帮助的指引。

It is undeniable that there are serious problems with the presentation of forensic science evidence in U.S.courtrooms.The 2009 report from the National Academy of Science(NAS)on forensic science and the 2016 report from the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology(PCAST),investigated and written by leading scientists in the U.S.,indicate that forensic sciences are badly in need of scientific testing.They also indicate that many of the strong claims made by forensic scientists and their proponents are misleading in light of the lack of scientific data to back up those claims.The power to fix forensic science evidence resides with the judiciary.The general scientific community,the 2009 NAS report and the 2016 PCAST report can provide helpful guideposts to trial judges for assessing scientific reliability.