论文部分内容阅读
在民事审判过程中,原被告双方为了证明各自所主张的待证事实,很多情况下需要通过司法鉴定来加以证明。而司法实践中,由于鉴定方式、方法的不统一等因素。往往会出现前后两次鉴定结论完全相反的情形,影响了诉讼的正常进行。面对两份截然相反的结论,审判实践中,法官往往采纳后一份结论而以此作为定案的依据,此种自由裁量权在很大程度上对于查明案件事实起到了负面的效果,不利于审判工作的公正实施,不利于树立司法的权威性,基于此,本文主要针对上述情形对现行的鉴定程序性规定进行研究和评价,并结合司法实务,提出相应的改进建议。
In the process of civil trial, in order to prove the fact that each of the defendants claimed to be proved, in many cases, the original defendant needs to prove it through forensic science. In judicial practice, due to the identification method, the method is not uniform and other factors. Often appear twice before and after the conclusion of the opposite conclusion of the case, affecting the normal proceedings. Confronted with two diametrically opposed conclusions, in the trial practice, the judge often adopts the latter conclusion as the basis for finalizing the case. Such discretion has to a large extent played a negative effect in identifying the facts of the case. It is not conducive to establish the authority of the judiciary, which is conducive to the fair trial of the trial. Based on this, this paper mainly studies and appraises the current procedure of appraising the appraisal according to the above situation, and puts forward corresponding suggestions for improvement based on judicial practice.