The Admissibility and Credibility of Expert Witness Testimony and Expert's Reports in Taiwan's Criminal Justice System - Comparing to the United States' System

Because of the complexity of various cases in scientific area emerged in the last few decades, the significance of scientific evidence has increased dramatically in Taiwan. Unlike traditional evidence which is mostly direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and documents that can be interpreted by judges according to their daily experiences and legal expertise, scientific evidence, on the contrary, is highly professional and difficult for judges to analyze. Therefore, expert witnesses play an important role in interpreting scientific evidence, helping judges to comprehend scientific evidence correctly, accurately and efficiently. To assure the reliability of expert witness testimony and expert's reports, there are a few factors stipulated in legal authority. Nevertheless, some factors are too broad and abstract to establish a practical and reliable standard, while others are debatable in judicial practice. Besides, expert witnesses usually present their examination of scientific evidence as reports in the first place rather than testifying directly at court, triggering the debate of the admissibility of expert's reports between judicial practice and academic field. Currently, most expert's reports are considered admissible in criminal judicial practice, which is viewed unconstitutional by some legal researchers on account of depriving of defendants' right of confrontation. However, this does not mean that expert witnesses are not subject to cross-examination. Nowadays, even if expert's reports are admissible in trial, expert witnesses are sometimes called by parties at court in terms of evaluating the credibility of expert witness testimony.