刑事专家辅助人制度的实证研究

An Empirical Study on the Assistant System of Criminal Experts

《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》在第二次修订之际首创了专家辅助人制度。司法实践证明,尽管专家辅助人参与刑事司法的案件非常少,但专家辅助人制度不是摆设,一定程度上的确有助于控辩双方、特别是辩方质证鉴定意见,以及有利于法官对鉴定意见的审查认证。然而,我国刑事专家辅助人的制度实践也暴露出一些深层次的结构性矛盾:第一,立法机关与理论界对专家辅助人制度寄予厚望,不过在司法实践中,由于控辩双方对专家辅助人的功能期望不同,导致辩方才有动力聘请专家辅助人出庭质证鉴定意见,但由于受制于聘请费用较高以及专家辅助人意见的实际作用有限等因素影响,辩方事实上很少聘请专家辅助人出庭质证鉴定意见;第二,一方面法律与司法实践倾向于把专家辅助人的庭审角色塑造成鉴定人,但另一方面,立法又不将专家辅助人意见视为法官查明案件事实的法定证据;第三,控辩双方利用专家辅助人制度的能力处于失衡状态。为了解决专家辅助人制度的上述结构性问题,我国刑事司法需要从几个方面进行制度改革:一是重塑专家辅助人的制度角色,把专家辅助人塑造为独立的诉讼参与人;二是赋予法院聘请专家辅助人的制度权力,在鉴定意见存在争议的情况下,既可以克服控辩双方不申请专家辅助人的局限,又在客观上弥补了辩方无能力聘请专家辅助人的弊端;三是明确专家辅助人意见的辅助证据地位,即以鉴定意见证明力为证明对象的证据;四是对专家辅助人的资格进行限制,要求专家辅助人应该具有与鉴定人相对应的资格条件;五是建构专家辅助人的权利与责任体系,强化专家意见的客观性与可靠性;六是完善专家辅助人制度的运作程序,包括专家辅助人制度的启动条件、专家辅助人的出庭程序、专家辅助人对鉴定意见的质证程序等等。

The criminal procedure law of the people's Republic of China initiated the expert assistant system when it was revised for the second time.Judicial practice has proved that although there are very few cases in which the expert assistant participates in criminal justice,the expert assistant system is not a decoration.To a certain extent,it does help both sides of the prosecution and the defense,especially the defense cross examination and appraisal opinions,as well as the judges'examination and certification of the appraisal opinions.However,the practice of criminal expert assistant system in China also exposes some deep structural contradictions:First,the legislature and the theorists have high expectations on the expert assistant system,but in judicial practice,the prosecution side and the defense side have different expectations for the function of the expert assistant,so the defense has the motivation to hire the expert assistant to testify and appraise opinions in court.However,due to the high cost of employment and the limited practical role of the expert assistant opinion,the defense in fact employs very limited expert assistant to appear in court for cross examination and appraisal.Second,on the one hand,the law and judicial practice tend to shape the role of expert assistant as an expert,but on the other hand,legislation does not regard the opinion of expert assistant as the legal evidence for a judge to find out the facts of a case.Third,the ability of both sides to use the expert assistant system is in an unbalanced state.To solve the above structural problems of the expert assistant system,China’s criminal justice needs to carry out institutional reform in several aspects:first,to reshape the role of the expert assistant system,and mold the expert assistant as an independent litigation participant.Second,to give the court institutional power to hire the expert assistant;in the case of disputes in the expert opinion,it can not only overcome the limitation that the prosecution and the defense do not apply for expert assistant,but also make up for the disadvantage that the defense is unable to hire expert assistant objectively.Third,to make clear the auxiliary evidence status of expert assistant's opinion,that is,to take the proving power of expert opinion as the evidence of proving object.Fourth,to restrict the qualification of expert assistant,which requires the expert assistant should have the qualification conditions corresponding to the appraiser.Fifth,to construct the right and responsibility system of expert assistant,strengthen the objectivity and reliability of expert opinion.Sixth,to improve the operation procedure of expert assistant system,including the starting conditions of expert assistant system,the trial procedure of expert assistant,and the cross examination procedure of expert assistant to expert opinion,etc.