张宇宽 及小同

（1.华东政法大学，上海 200063；2.上海市第二中级人民法院，上海 200070）

【摘 要】随着以审判为中心的司法改革的不断深入，人民法院在诉讼中的主导地位逐渐凸显，法院的对外委托工作和审判中对于鉴定意见的审查直接影响到鉴定质量与司法公正。在最高人民法院相继出台《最高人民法院关于民事诉讼证据的若干规定》和《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》后，对于一些条款在实践中的适用问题使得人民法院与鉴定机构、鉴定人逐步形成对立关系，对于鉴定意见“明确”的刚性要求驱使鉴定机构和鉴定人采取避险行为，人民法院应当在鉴定意见的科学性问题上作出适当让步，重建与鉴定机构、鉴定人的信任关系。

【关键词】民事诉讼；证据；司法鉴定；鉴定人；鉴定意见

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2022）02-0190-13

The understanding of the “clear requirement” of expert’s opinion. Zhang Yukuan, East China University of Political Science and Law, Shanghai, 200063; and Ji Xiaotong, Second Intermediate Court of Shanghai,Shanghai, 200070.

【Abstract】With the deepening of the judicial reform centered on trial, the dominance of the People’s court in litigation is gradually highlighted. The court’s outside commissioning work and the review of expert opinions in the trial directly affect the quality of evaluations and judicial justice. After the Supreme People’s Court has successively issued Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Procedures and Provisions on Several Issues Concerning the People’s Court’s Examination of Entrusted Identification in Civil Proceedings, the application of some provisions in practice has gradually formed an antagonistic relationship between the People’s courts and forensic evaluation institutions and forensic experts. What is more, the rigid requirement for “clear” forensic experts’ opinion drives forensic evaluation institutions and forensic experts to take risk-avoiding behaviors. The courts should make appropriate concessions on the scientific nature of expert’s opinion and rebuild the trust relationship with forensic evaluation institutions and forensic experts.

【Key Words】Civil litigations; Evidence; Forensic science; Forensic experts; Forensic experts’ opinion