刑事司法制度改革－台灣專家證人之探討

Reforming the Criminal Justice System: Forensic Expert Witness in Taiwan

The role of forensic expert witnesses in courts has become the focus of considerable interest in recent years. Infamous cases including wrongful convictions: the Chiang Kuo-ching case, the Hscichih trio case, the Hsu Tzu-chiang case, the Zheng Xin-zhe case, the Houfeng Bridge murder case, have raised the awareness of problems existing in expert testimony and have refocused attention on proper standards of admissibility. In assessing the admissibility of scientific evidence, due process of law must be respected in order to protect the rights of prosecutors, plaintiffs and defendants. The inclusion of the right of defendants to have the opportunity of cross-examination, and the right to full disclosure of the standards and procedures of scientific evidence in laboratories should also be safeguarded. Advanced technology could play an important role in criminal case proceedings in Taiwan, especially with respect to scientific evidence; however, violation of human rights must be avoided. The Judicial Reform Foundation found wrongful convictions mostly coming from errors in terms of forensic identification, or misconduct/malfeasance of personnel. In 2019, the Judicial Yuan announced the draft amendment on articles of Code of Criminal Procedure, with several main points: 1. To specify the qualification requirements of forensic expert 2. The right of defendant to appoint a forensic expert 3. The right of defendant to state his opinion before appointing an expert in the investigation 4. The level of professional expertise of forensic experts is required and the forensics report shall contain sufficient information and explanation of methodology application 5. The forensic report from forensic institute shall include his/her name of the expert and the forensic expert shall appear in court for cross-examination 6. The court may appoint any expert for legal consultation 7. Lie detector test without recurrence results cannot be used as conviction evidence in court. This article attempts to find possible reasons behind discord in communication of forensic science with the court and the difficulty of subpoenaing or appointing forensic experts to court. I found counsels often lacking professional knowledge about scientific evidence. Thus, they cannot work well in the cases in which scientific evidence is used. Most forensic experts propose to deliver their opinion in writing instead. For this reason, cross-examination might not be conducted efficiently and professionally, raising the question of whether the accused having a fair trial.
近年來，刑事科學專家證人在法庭中的重要性已成為人們關注的焦點，著名之江國慶案、蘇建和案、徐自強案、鄭性澤案、后豐大橋女子墜橋案，引起了人們對專家證詞的重視及科學證據的可接納標準。在評估科學證據時，必須遵守正當法律程序，以保護被告的詰問權利，保障被告有機會針對專家證人提出之科學證據進行交互詰問的權利，以及要求專家證人充分披露科學證據的實驗室標準和程序的權利。先進的科學技術固然可以在刑事訴訟中發揮重要作用，但必須避免侵犯法庭當事人之基本人權。民間司法改革基金會追究「冤獄案」主要原因，乃為科學鑑識錯誤及相關鑑定人員之違法失職。2019年5月司法院公布第177次院會通過刑事訴訟法及刑事訴訟法施行法鑑定部分修正條文，共有下列重點：一、明確鑑定人之資格要求。二、當事人於審判中得自行委任鑑定人。三、當事人於偵查中選任鑑定人前有陳述意見之機會且於審判中選任鑑定人前得陳述意見。四、鑑定人應具備專業能力，鑑定報告應載明有足夠的基礎、可靠的原理及方法。五、機關鑑定時從事鑑定之自然人應於書面報告具名，且鑑定人應出庭接受交互詰問。六、法院得就法律意見選任專家學者陳述意見。七、明定測謊之結果不得作為認定犯罪事實存否之證據。本文試圖探討我國鑑定人與法院之代溝瓶頸以及鑑定人出庭接受交互詰問之障礙。我們發現檢察官、法官及律師們，通常缺乏有關科學證據的專業知識。因此，無法針對科學證據的重要關鍵細節進行專業性的交互詰問，導致大多數鑑定人建議改以書面函詢方式回覆意見。法院未命實際鑑定之人到庭言詞說明以釐清待證事實，可能使被告原已存在專業知識欠缺之武器不平等，又再欠缺對質詰問權，更對人權保障與科學證據的均衡造成失重，從而產生了被告是否受到公正審判的爭議。