王思思¹   狄胜利^1，2

（1.证据科学教育部重点实验室（中国政法大学），100088 ； 2.“2011 计划”司法文明协同创新中心（中国政法大学），100088）

【摘 要】现代科学技术的迅猛发展对司法审判产生了巨大的影响，各种科学问题、技术证据、鉴定意见呈现于法庭，法官在审判案件中由于知识和经验的局限性而难以判断，在此背景下专家辅助人制度应运而生。英美法系有专家证人制度，存在完善的以交叉询问为主的专家证人出庭质证规则，大陆法系国家和地区有诉讼辅助人制度，虽然立法中没有明确的出庭质证规则，但是有完善的鉴定人出庭质证规则。我国当前专家辅助人出庭质证规则没有明确的规定，但准用证人出庭质证规则。不过目前缺乏进一步的理论阐述，且简单直接适用也存在问题，同时缺乏系统的、具体的、具有可操作性的质证规则。对此笔者提出构建专家辅助人出庭质证规则的建议。

【关键词】司法鉴定；专家辅助人；质证；交叉询问；规则

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2015）02-0248-10

Studies on expert assessor examination rules at trial. Wang Sisi¹,Di Shenli^1，2.1.Key Laboratory for Evidence Science (China University of Political Science and Law), Ministry of Education, Beijing, 100088;2.Collaborative Innovation Center of Judicial Civilization, Beijing, 100088

【Abstract】The rapid development of modern science and technology had a huge impact on adjudications.Various scientific issues, technical evidence, appraisal opinion have been presented in court, which is difficult for the judge at trial to determine, due to limitations in knowledge and experience. In this context an Expert Assessor System emerged in China. The Anglo-American system has an Expert Witness System, with matured examination rules on Expert Witness who testified at trial mainly based on cross-examination. In the meanwhile civil law countries and regions have established the Litigation Assistant System, although there is no explicitly stipulated Expert Examination Rules at trial. Nonetheless, a sound Rule of Appraiser Examination at trial does exist. Although China does not have specific regulations on expert assessor examination at trial, it is allowed to use witness examination rules at trial. However, the current system is lack of further theoretical elaboration and also problematical in straightforward applications. At the same time lacking of systematic, specific, workable court examination rules, for these problems, we made some proposals to build an expert assessor examination system in this article.

【Key Words】Forensic examination, Expert assessor, Examination of evidence, Cross examination, Regulations