从司法逻辑到技术逻辑——鉴定意见的明确性规定与科学性要求之冲突及其调适

From judicial logic to technical logic——conflict and reconciliation between definiteness and scientificity requirement of the expert opinion

鉴定意见不明确常常困扰民事法官。为此,最高人民法院最近颁布的相关规定,明确要求出具不明确鉴定意见的鉴定人承担相应法律后果。然而,最高人民法院对鉴定意见的明确性规定与司法鉴定的科学性要求产生了冲突,该冲突根源于法官的司法逻辑不同于鉴定人的技术逻辑。司法鉴定是科学实证活动,鉴定意见是否明确受到鉴定技术、鉴定材料、鉴定人能力等多种因素影响。法官的司法逻辑应当遵循鉴定人的技术逻辑,解决鉴定意见的明确性规定与科学性要求的冲突需要采取如下措施:合理降低不明确鉴定意见的发生率;有效强化法官对不明确鉴定意见发生机制的甄别能力;严格限制出具不明确鉴定意见的鉴定人的责任范围;充分激励法官通过不明确鉴定意见审判案件。

Unclear expert opinion often confuses civil judges. Therefore, the Supreme People’s Court recently promulgates directional judicial interpretations, according to which the forensic expert who issues ambiguous expert opinions should bear corresponding legal responsibility. However, the specific requirement announced by the Supreme People’s Court conflicts with the scientificity requirement of judidcial appraisal.Such conflict is rooted in the fact that the judicial logic applied by a judge is distinguished from the technical logic applied by a forensic expert. Judicial appraisal is a scientific empirical activity. Whether the expert opinion is definite is affected by many factors, such as the forensic technology, test samples and the forensic expert’s capacity. The judge’s judicial logic should follow the forensic expert’s technical logic. The conflict between definiteness and scientificity requirement of the expert opinion can be resolved by the following measures: reasonably reduce the incidence of ambiguous expert opinions;effectively strengthen the judge’s ability to discern the formation mechanism of ambiguous expert opinions;strictly limit the liability scope borne by the expert who issues ambiguous opinions;fully encourage judges to hear cases with ambiguous expert opinions.