—基于598份刑事判决的实证分析

赵一平

（中国人民大学法学院，北京100872）

【摘要】我国《刑事诉讼法》规定，当事人和辩护人、诉讼代理人在法庭审理过程中对鉴定意见存有疑问的，有权申请重新鉴定。然而，司法实践中，这一事关鉴定意见可靠性的救济程序被架空，诉讼中的鉴定异化为了一次鉴定，为司法裁判埋下了错误认定案件事实的隐患。若要规避这种风险，还应从庭审阶段重新鉴定制度的运行样态出发，通过对刑事判决进行实证分析，反思重新鉴定启动难背后存在的重新鉴定标准不明、法官对鉴定意见的偏信、审前机关传导重启压力、鉴定意见质证虚化等问题。最后，适当借鉴域外经验，针对当前刑事诉讼重新鉴定制度存在的问题，提出鉴定意见质证实质化与重新鉴定规范化的应对方案，激活庭审阶段重新鉴定制度的运转。

【关键词】刑事庭审；重新鉴定；质证实质化；程序规范化

【中图分类号】D915.13

【文献标识码】A

【文章编号】1674-1226（2023）03-0346-13

Why is it so difficult to reopen a forensic exam at trial?--An empirical analysis based on 598 criminal

judgments.Zhao Yiping,Law School of Renmin University of China,Beijing 100872.

【Abstract】According to China's Criminal Procedure Law,parties,defense counsels and other counsels have the right to apply to reopen a forensic exam,if they have doubts about the original forensic expert opinion at trial.However,this remedial procedure,which concerns the reliability of the forensic expert opinion,has been suspended in practice.The forensic exam gradually becomes an one-time exam,leaving hidden risks for wrongful finding of the facts.In order to avoid this risk,we should also start from focusing on the operational model of the forensic exam reopening system at trial.Through empirical analysis of criminal judgments,this paper reflects on the problems behind the difficulty of forensic exam reopening,such as the unclear standard of forensic exam reopening,the judge's biased trust in the forensic opinion,the pressure transmitted from the pretrial authorities'determination of reopening the exam,and the invalidity of the cross examination of the forensic opinion.Finally,in order to resolve the current problems existing in the forensic exam reopening system in criminal proceedings,this paper,with due reference to the foreign jurisdictions’experiences,proposes to enhance the cross-examination of forensic expert opinions and standardize the forensic exam reopening process,so as to activate the operation of the forensic exam reopening system during the trial.

【Key Words】Criminal trial;Forensic exam reopening;Substantive cross-examination;Standardizing the

procedure