Research On The Implementation Of The Expert Auxiliary System In Criminal Procedure

"People with expertise" will be written in the new Criminal Procedure law, marking thebirth of the system of expert assessor. The system of expert assessor undoubtedly adds a newbright spot to the Criminal Procedure Law. Expert auxiliary assists the process ofcross-examination, solving the long-standing judicial difficulties. And it responds to thecrying need for the scientific and professional judicial proof. The formal enforcement of thenew Criminal Procedure law started on January1,2013, marking the expert auxiliarytransited to the stage of judicial practice. In this paper, the starting point of the writing is tostudy whether this system is available in judicial practice and discuss preliminarily whether itcan play their functions. In the process of thesis writing, first, the author analyze the abovematters from horizontal and vertical angles: for the longitudinal aspects, analyzing thebackgrounds and orientation of reform of the system, expert auxiliary; for the lateral aspects,comparing the outside regulation of the similar system and meanwhile refer to the regulationsin the Administrative Procedure law and the Civil Procedure law in our country. Second, theauthor exerts cases’ introduction to analyze several typical criminal cases in this field. Tomake it more perfect, the author gives corresponding explanation towards the existingproblems and deficiencies. Last, the author makes corresponding perfect suggestion towardsthe matters in implementation process as to help this system do in judicial practice. This paperis composed of three parts, about33,000words.The first part is the analysis of the basic theory of the criminal expert auxiliary. Thissystem agrees with the crying needs of the reform in our country\s judicial authentication. Itgrows from the beneficial references of the foreign experience, too. The above is thebackground of the system\s birth. It experiences the amendment of the relevant judicialexplanation, the finalization of the implementation, the analysis of the scholars and theofficial legal suggestions and the application of the law. Current main provisions of thecriminal procedure law are application subject, decision authority, function orientation, etc.Law’s regulation is very short. Thus, it increases the difficulty of the system’s implementation.Because of the unilaterality of our country’s expert opinion starting right, theself-investigation of the investigative organization, the repeat identification and the bulldetermine, our judicial authentication exists problems all the time. This system play a positive role in the defendant imbalances caused by the deficiency of the expertise rights and theadoption dilemma of expert opinion caused by the judges’ false. As a consequence, it helpsguarantee the fairness of the criminal litigation and the judicial credibility.The second part is analysis of the imperfection and implementation of the expert auxiliary.On account of the preliminary practice of the new Criminal Procedure law and the dominanceof the expert opinion, the application of the system in judicial practice is few. The judicialofficials, including judges, and the public concentrate less on this system. Thus, the system isstill not applicable enough. This paper uses two typical cases in this field to analyze thissystem’s performance. According to the analysis, there are subjective matters in this system’simplementation. The imperfection of the procedure rules and the corresponding safeguardmechanism is also faced by this system. Meanwhile, it is faced of the value selection matters.On the one hand, the judges are used to using expert consultation and restarting the appraisalto solve the special matters in the authentication. On the other hand, the expert advisers areusually not willing to taking part in an action or hard to find. Also, the effect of the expertadvisers’ implementation has not fully revealed, which makes the system’s situation awkward.The third part aims at offering corresponding perfect measure towards the matters thatthis system owns in judicial practice. To make this system more functional and better forjudicial practice, this paper analyzes these aspects from four sides. First, the dominant role ofthe expert advisers should be cleared to guarantee their independent status in litigation on thebasis of restricted neutrality. Second, the procedural rules of the system can be refined. Bymeans of establishing the certification procedure for the expert advisers in the pretrialprocedure, if necessary, the exchange of expert advisers’ opinions can be applied on mutualconsent to prepare well before a trial. Meanwhile, further detailed regulation of the rights andobligations that the expert advisers own in a trial is cleared. After a trial, the expert advisersshould hand in their writing ideas about the cross-examination of appraisal opinion to thecourt. The court has to check this report also. Third, the safeguard mechanism of this systemhas to be improved continuously. Increasing the regulation of guaranteeing the expert advisers;appealing in court dispels the misgivings that the expert advisers’ not willing to entering anappearance. Meanwhile the obligations that the expert advisers who provide bogus newsshould assume are regulated. Last, the public attestation in courts which expert advisersappear should be strengthened. Only in this way, expert advisers’ function will be bettershown to strengthen the trial’s transparency in public.