本文選題：專家輔助人 + 專家輔助人出庭制度��； 參考：《中南大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：2012《刑事訴訟法》正式確立起我國(guó)刑事訴訟中的專家輔助人出庭制度,為控辯雙方質(zhì)證鑒定意見提供了一種新的有效方法。這不僅有助于當(dāng)事人充分行使訴訟權(quán)利,盡可能地排除司法者可能存在的肆意與偏見,而且有助于法庭正確評(píng)價(jià)鑒定意見,認(rèn)定案件事實(shí),從而保障裁判公正。然而,我國(guó)刑事訴訟中專家輔助人出庭制度尚未形成完整體系,立法本身沒有具體的實(shí)體規(guī)則和程序規(guī)則,可以預(yù)見其在司法實(shí)踐中必將遭遇適用性困難。 研究表明,刑事訴訟專家輔助人是一種新型的訴訟參與人,采取“聘用為主,指定為輔”的雙軌選任機(jī)制能夠較好滿足當(dāng)前司法實(shí)踐對(duì)刑事訴訟專家輔助人出庭的需求。為了保證庭審質(zhì)證效果和裁判公正,專家輔助人出庭必須遵守回避原則,認(rèn)真行使和履行閱卷權(quán)、質(zhì)證權(quán)、保持客觀中立以及對(duì)法庭的優(yōu)先義務(wù)等權(quán)利義務(wù),并且承擔(dān)因故意或重大過失導(dǎo)致的法律責(zé)任。同時(shí),法庭對(duì)專家意見的采納,需要結(jié)合全案作出綜合評(píng)價(jià),避免可能發(fā)生的科學(xué)誤導(dǎo)。另外,逐步建立鑒定信息披露機(jī)制和專家索引庫(kù)等,也是司法實(shí)務(wù)具體操作的新思路。
[Abstract]:In 2012, the Criminal procedure Law formally established the system of expert assistant appearing in court in criminal proceedings in our country, which provided a new and effective method for cross-examination and appraisal of both prosecution and defense. This will not only help the parties to fully exercise their litigation rights and eliminate as far as possible the arbitrariness and prejudice that the judiciaries may have, but also help the courts to correctly evaluate the opinions of the judges, identify the facts of the cases, and thus ensure the impartiality of the judges. However, the system of expert assistant appearing in court in criminal procedure in our country has not formed a complete system, the legislation itself does not have concrete substantive rules and procedural rules, it can be predicted that it will encounter difficulties of applicability in judicial practice. The research shows that the expert assistant of criminal procedure is a new type of litigant participant. The two-track selection mechanism of "employing mainly and appointing as auxiliary" can better meet the needs of the current judicial practice for the criminal procedure expert assistant to appear in court. In order to ensure the result of cross-examination and the justice of the judge, the expert assistant must abide by the principle of recusal, exercise and fulfill the right of marking, the right of cross-examination, keep the objective neutrality and the priority obligation to the court, etc. And undertake the legal liability caused by intentional or gross negligence. At the same time, the court's acceptance of the expert opinion needs to make a comprehensive evaluation combined with the whole case to avoid possible scientific misinformation. In addition, it is a new idea of judicial practice to set up the information disclosure mechanism and expert index database.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D925.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 沈健;比較與借鑒:鑒定人制度研究[J];比較法研究;2004年02期

2 陳志興;黃友鋒;;簡(jiǎn)析意大利國(guó)家的“技術(shù)顧問”制度[J];長(zhǎng)春理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年01期

3 馬婷婷;;專家證人相關(guān)問題探析——以刑事訴訟為背景[J];重慶理工大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué));2010年08期

4 季美君;;國(guó)外專家證人、鑒定人的資格及選任[J];中國(guó)司法;2007年06期

5 陳光中;卞建林;陳衛(wèi)東;宋英輝;李晶;;《刑事訴訟法》修改專家筆談[J];中國(guó)司法;2012年05期

6 陳斌;王路;;論我國(guó)刑事訴訟中的專家輔助人及其制度構(gòu)建[J];湖北社會(huì)科學(xué);2011年01期

7 季美君;;澳大利亞專家證據(jù)可采性規(guī)則研究[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2008年02期

8 邢學(xué)毅;;論在醫(yī)療糾紛訴訟中推行專家輔助人制度[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2009年03期

9 汪建成;;專家證人模式與司法鑒定模式之比較[J];證據(jù)科學(xué);2010年01期

10 邵劭;;論專家證人制度的構(gòu)建——以專家證人制度與鑒定制度的交叉共存為視角[J];法商研究;2011年04期

，

本文編號(hào)：2062937