—从 2020 年司法部与最高法的规范冲突谈起

付 凤 彭丽红

（中南财经政法大学，武汉 430073）

【摘 要】2020 年最高人民法院《关于人民法院民事诉讼中委托鉴定审查工作若干问题的规定》，沿续了 20 年前最高人民检察院《关于 CPS 多道心理测试鉴定结论能否作为诉讼证据使用问题的批复》对多道心理生理测试技术证据形式的矛盾表述，对其证据效力的认定仍属“表面否定、实质肯定”。该《规定》短期内有助于遏制民事审判实践中测试技术滥用失范的现状，但由于法规自身表述难以逻辑自洽，且与司法部部门规章存在明显法律冲突，反而不利于测试技术的法律规制与长远发展。审判机关对测试技术术语、专业领域和证据形式的误解和不当表述应予以纠正；同时，测试技术的应用标准及规程也亟需行业主管机关予以细化和监管。

【关键词】多道心理生理测试 ; 鉴定意见 ; 证据能力 ; 法律冲突

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2021）02-0242-13

The clarification on the evidentiary admissibility of polygraph test: conflict of laws between ministry of justice and the supreme people's court. Fu Feng. Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, Wuhan 430073.

【Abstract】The newly promulgated Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the People's Courts' Examination of Entrusted Identification in Civil Proceedings(2020) followed the contradictory expression of the technical evidence form of polygraph test in the Reply of the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Whether the Appraisal Conclusion of CPS Polygraph Test can be used as Litigation Evidence(1999). In the short term, the Provisions contribute to curb the abuse of polygraph test in civil adjudication However, due to the difficulty in logical consistence of the Provisions itself and obvious legal conflicts with the rules issued by the Ministry of Justice, it is not conducive to the long-term development of polygraph test technology and its legal framework. At the same time, the application standards and procedures of polygraph testing technology need to be refined and supervised by the Ministry of Justice.

【Key Words】Polygraph test; Expert opinion; Evidentiary admissibility; Conflict of laws