Examining Scientific Evidence in US and Chinese Courts: A Comparative Study
The critical examination of scientific evidence is crucial in attempting to distinguish genuine science from "junk science" and provides judges with an important basis upon which to determine the credibility of expert witnesses giving scientific evidence. From studying the law in the USA,...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
2016-01-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.jfsmonline.com/article.asp?issn=2349-5014;year=2016;volume=2;issue=3;spage=151;epage=159;aulast=Chen |
| _version_ | 1828765179003797504 |
|---|---|
| author | Bangda Chen |
| author_facet | Bangda Chen |
| author_sort | Bangda Chen |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The critical examination of scientific evidence is crucial in attempting to distinguish genuine science from "junk science" and provides judges with an important basis upon which to determine the credibility of expert witnesses giving scientific evidence. From studying the law in the USA, we learn that the process for examining scientific evidence in court is based upon full discovery of the proposed evidence before trial and the availability of expert witnesses at trial to testify orally and be examined and cross-examined. Empirical studies suggest that the opportunities to critically examine scientific evidence in Chinese courts are not so freely available. Discovery is neglected, thus limiting the effectiveness of cross-examination, and current rules do not encourage oral testimony or effective cross-examination. To solve these problems, the disclosure duty should be put on the prosecution, rather than on the defendant. Scientific evidence should be discovered. Disclosure must include the basis, process, material relied upon, and methods of forensic appraisals. In the trial process, the prosecution has transferred the case file to court, where the defendant will be able to copy the scientific evidence. The neutrality of expert assistants established by article 192 of the new Criminal Procedural Law should be strengthened. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-11T06:44:38Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-ac3f59030a624d2cba7c43f96976c442 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2349-5014 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-11T06:44:38Z |
| publishDate | 2016-01-01 |
| publisher | Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-ac3f59030a624d2cba7c43f96976c4422022-12-22T01:17:08ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Forensic Science and Medicine2349-50142016-01-012315115910.4103/2349-5014.191468Examining Scientific Evidence in US and Chinese Courts: A Comparative StudyBangda ChenThe critical examination of scientific evidence is crucial in attempting to distinguish genuine science from "junk science" and provides judges with an important basis upon which to determine the credibility of expert witnesses giving scientific evidence. From studying the law in the USA, we learn that the process for examining scientific evidence in court is based upon full discovery of the proposed evidence before trial and the availability of expert witnesses at trial to testify orally and be examined and cross-examined. Empirical studies suggest that the opportunities to critically examine scientific evidence in Chinese courts are not so freely available. Discovery is neglected, thus limiting the effectiveness of cross-examination, and current rules do not encourage oral testimony or effective cross-examination. To solve these problems, the disclosure duty should be put on the prosecution, rather than on the defendant. Scientific evidence should be discovered. Disclosure must include the basis, process, material relied upon, and methods of forensic appraisals. In the trial process, the prosecution has transferred the case file to court, where the defendant will be able to copy the scientific evidence. The neutrality of expert assistants established by article 192 of the new Criminal Procedural Law should be strengthened.http://www.jfsmonline.com/article.asp?issn=2349-5014;year=2016;volume=2;issue=3;spage=151;epage=159;aulast=ChenCross-examinationcross-examination of expert witnessesdiscovery of evidenceforensic appraisalsscientific evidence |
| spellingShingle | Bangda Chen Examining Scientific Evidence in US and Chinese Courts: A Comparative Study Journal of Forensic Science and Medicine Cross-examination cross-examination of expert witnesses discovery of evidence forensic appraisals scientific evidence |
| title | Examining Scientific Evidence in US and Chinese Courts: A Comparative Study |
| title_full | Examining Scientific Evidence in US and Chinese Courts: A Comparative Study |
| title_fullStr | Examining Scientific Evidence in US and Chinese Courts: A Comparative Study |
| title_full_unstemmed | Examining Scientific Evidence in US and Chinese Courts: A Comparative Study |
| title_short | Examining Scientific Evidence in US and Chinese Courts: A Comparative Study |
| title_sort | examining scientific evidence in us and chinese courts a comparative study |
| topic | Cross-examination cross-examination of expert witnesses discovery of evidence forensic appraisals scientific evidence |
| url | http://www.jfsmonline.com/article.asp?issn=2349-5014;year=2016;volume=2;issue=3;spage=151;epage=159;aulast=Chen |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT bangdachen examiningscientificevidenceinusandchinesecourtsacomparativestudy |