Improvement Of Procedure In System Of Expert

In our current litigation, the evidence from experts'opinions only can reflect as appraisal conclusions. However, the limitations of expert conclusion increasingly apparent in the judicial practice, according to the principles of evidence appear to identify as a legal conclusion to the type of evidence admissible by the court. The court must be investigated, but, in reality, because the parties and the judges on the relevant expertise lack of identification, they can not effectively cross-examine and review conclusions. Those conclusions in essence directly become the basis of facts of the cases for a judge. In order to protect the parties on specific issues involving the facts of the case evidence, cross-examination proceedings, such as the right to change the expert opinion evidence can not be carried out cross-examination fundamentally and review of the current situation. Many of the ideas advocated the introduction of the common law in our country in the expert witness system. I believe that there are many obvious defects in the common-law tradition of expert witnesses system, and its practical problems have been exposed which common law countries pay more and more attention to, reflect on and amend. There are serious conflicts and incompatiblity in the common law system of the expert witness system with our legal tradition, legal philosophy, and many other aspects of the present system. It is not appropriate to copy expert witness system approach. In this paper, comparing and identifying with some related concepts such as experts, expert witness, and litigation agents etc, In this paper, the concept of expert peopleis boldly given ,and the definition of breakthrough. By analyzing and discussing on the virtue of expert evidence supporting the views of the property and the theoretical legitimacy necessity, and feasibility of establishment of the system of expert, it advocates that on the basis of our identification system, we should establish expert advisor system,and set expert opinion evidence of system up that gives priority to appraise the conclusions of the experts'opinions, and supporting human for complement, which coexist and complement to each other.