隨著社會文明的發展以及產業分工的細緻化，現行社會紛爭堪比以往更加複雜，致使鑑定人在法庭上的地位日趨重要，其中鑑定人意見往往左右著法官心證，若是鑑定意見存有瑕疵，勢必也將影響法官判決適法性。因此，要如何建構一套完善的機制把關鑑定出錯風險，無疑是我國司法必須正視的問題。 尤以「北捷隨機殺人案」以及「湯姆熊割喉案」為例，觀諸兩案件審理過程中就存有諸多爭議有待釐清，諸如鑑定機關未經具結、鑑定人干預審判權以及鑑定人未受詰問等問題。此外，相較於美國專家證人制度而言，我國對於鑑定人的適格性標準以及審查程序上可謂是疏於著磨，致使當事人或法院無從進一步質疑鑑定證據，以把關鑑定證據之品質。 固然美國專家證人制度存有若干優點可供我國借鑑，然該制度也非全然適合我國，若是強行移植於國內，恐滋生更多司法上問題。所幸我國司法院已然針對我國鑑定爭議擬定相關草案作出回應。同時該草案中並未全然引用美國專家證人制度，而是適當地援用部分規則於修訂條文中，以進一步具體化我國鑑定人適格性標準，此點殊為本文所讚許。 綜上，雖然本次修正草案有助於我國刑事鑑定爭議的解決，然該草案中仍然存有不少未解疑義以及相關衍生問題。對此，本文將進一步深入分析並提出個人淺見，供作為立法者未來的修正參考建議。 ;Along with the development of civilized society and the refinement of division of industry, the social disputes are more complicated than ever and the position of the expert witness in the court is increasingly important. Because the expert witness ′s opinions are often influence trial′s outcome, if the expert testimony is flawed, it will inevitably affect the legality of the judge’s decision. Therefore, how to build a perfect system to make sure the risk of expert witness errors is an inevitable issue that must be focused seriously by our judiciary. Take the case of " Taipei Metro Random Attack " and " Tom Bear Murder " as examples. There are many disputes that need to be clarified during the trial of the two cases. Such as organization testimony without affidavit, expert testimony interferes judicial power in determination, expert testimony without examination. In addition, compared with the federal rule of evidence in the United States, our judicial system lacks detailed the admissibility standard and review procedure of expert witness, which will prevent the parties or the court from further questioning the expert evidence to ensure the quality of the expert evidence. Even though the federal rule of evidence in the United States has several advantages for our judicial reference, it is not entirely suitable for our judicial. If it forcibly transplanted into our country, it might cause more judicial issues. Fortunately, Judicial Yuan has already built relevant draft amendment in respond to the issues of expert witness in our judicial. Meanwhile, the draft does not fully quote the expert witness of federal rule of evidence but properly applied part of rule into the revised provisions. This point is highly praised by this article. Above of all, although this draft amendment is helpful for the settlement of issues of expert witness in criminal procedure, there are still so many unresolved doubts and related derivative problems. For this issue, this article will in-depth analysis and make proposal to the legislator for the legal system reform for future reference.
