Brief discussion on the proof standard of traditional evidence of forensic pathology in murder cases / 复旦学报（医学版）

Objective In the legal proceedings of murder cases,we often encounter the problem of proof standard in traditional forensic pathology in deep research,which is lack of systemic discussion in domestic academic field.This paper aimed to discuss this problem.Methods We compared the relevant characteristics of different legal systems on the standard of proof system,analyzed the elements of the forensic pathology evidence related to murder cases,and discussed the problem with the author's judicial practice experience.Results We believe that the cause of death,death time,injury and injury tools are the three most important forensic pathology evidences in the murder of the standard system as the "three pillars".Conclusions Division of standards in traditional forensic pathology evidence in the murder is of great significance to raise the sense of evidence of forensic medicine,and if it exists major flaws in the evidence of forensic pathology,the evidence can be corrected or the proceedings can be terminated at the very beginning of the litigation phase,which is of great value to the savings of judicial resources.

Review on the Science Experts' Opinions cited by the Supreme Court Reversing the Original Judgements for the Murder Cases / 대한법의학회지

The authors selected 19 murder cases, which were reversed by the Supreme Court with citation of experts' opinions in its judgements. The original courts sentenced that 15 cases were guilty, and 4 cases innocent. There were 38 experts' opinions including 16 of both pathological and serological fields. Others are 2 for questioned documents, 1 for fingerprint, 1 for shoeprint, 1 for fire, 1 for material object. The Supreme Court kept the attitude paying regard to experts' opinions with rather strict interpretation of them. Also it had great concern about the procedures collecting evidences and rationalities of experts' opinions. In some cases, it pointed out that the original court should have investigated further to clarify the vague evidences and opinions. We commented briefly about some possible controversies on the experts' opinions and interpretations of the Supreme Court, strictly in the viewpoint of forensic pathology.