專家證人於我國司法實務運用之容許性——以刑事醫療訴訟實踐為中心【本期企劃】 試閱
The Admissibility of Expert Witness System Adopted in My Country’s Judiciary -Focus on the Application of Medical Criminal Procedure
我國的刑事醫療鑑定多是囑託機關鑑定為之，故鑑定機關出具的鑑定報告書，實務普遍肯定具證據能力，且不需實施鑑定者出庭接受交互詰問。然而，囿於法官對醫療知識的侷限性，不覺中容易過度依賴鑑定報告書，報告內容自然成為左右訴訟成敗的關鍵。至於，機關鑑定長期遭到侵害被告反對詰問權等質疑，反覆鑑定延宕訴訟的問題也未適當解決。本文將美國聯邦證據法規範的專家證人制度為借鑑，提出解決目前我國刑事醫療訴訟的具體建議。
In my country, criminal medical expertise is mostly commissioned by the authorities. Therefore, the expert reports issued by the evaluation agencies are widely recognized as having evidentiary value and generally do not require the experts to testify in court or undergo cross examination. However, due to the limitations of judges’ medical knowledge, they tend to overly rely on these expert reports, making the content of the reports a crucial factor in determining the success or failure of litigation. However, the authority of the evaluation agencies has been consistently challenged, particularly regarding the defendants’ right to cross-examination, resulting in repeated delays in the evaluation process and litigation. In this article, drawing inspiration from the expert witness system regulated by the U.S. Federal Rules of Evidence, specific suggestions are proposed to address the current issues in criminal medical litigation in our country.
042-063
