형사절차상 과학증거 활용과 관련한 시각의 전환 - 미국의 과학증거의 증거능력 및 증명력에 대한 논쟁을 중심으로 -
The Paradigm Shift of Scientific Evidence in Criminal Process - Based on the Debate on Admissibility and Reliability of Scientific Evidence in America -
1
조회
0
다운로드
4
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Scientific evidence is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, scientific evidence works as a good instrument to clarify the truth in the criminal justice system but on the other hand could cause bad results that is not expected. A judge that usually has no scientific background may face great difficulties in dealing with complex area of expertise. Most of all, a court should consider whether a particular science submitted to a criminal process has minimal scientific validity and also take into consideration how the science prove any fact relevant. This judicial consideration of science does not correspond to what is done by scientists. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., decided by the United States Supreme Court shifts the standards of assessing scientific evidence. What is interesting is that the controversy of legal standard of assessment of scientific evidence become more seriously since after the Daubert decision. The most important reason is because the Daubert case contain contradictive factors in its reasoning. The scientific validity can not stand the sharpened attack from criticisms. There is no clear evidence that the legal standard about admissibility and probative force of scientific evidence has come to be settled. The view that scientific evidence is the best way to clarify the truth in criminal process was criticized in two ways. First, participants of criminal process usually do not have qualified scientists who can properly assess science in court. Second, the argument that trash science is widespread in criminal justice system come to get persuasive powers. The criticisms does not come to end for low-quality science but get to the perspective of paradigm shift for scientific evidence. Nonetheless, until now, the belief that science could rescue bad practice and system of criminal justice makes the problems more complex. For the eyes of some Korean scholars, to achieve justice more effectively in criminal justice system, science should be more often used to prove facts in courts. Also, the legal rule that reliability of evidence should rely on scientific validity express the hope for science. What is more necessary now is understanding pros and cons of science, to open up the door more widely to truth in a court. We should reassess every single scientific method and theory in forensic science area. If any error of a science cannot be totally eradicated, the reasonable reformation of criminal process must be the next option.
Abstract
Scientific evidence is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, scientific evidence works as a good instrument to clarify the truth in the criminal justice system but on the other hand could cause bad results that is not expected. A judge that usually has no scientific background may face great difficulties in dealing with complex area of expertise. Most of all, a court should consider whether a particular science submitted to a criminal process has minimal scientific validity and also take into consideration how the science prove any fact relevant. This judicial consideration of science does not correspond to what is done by scientists. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., decided by the United States Supreme Court shifts the standards of assessing scientific evidence. What is interesting is that the controversy of legal standard of assessment of scientific evidence become more seriously since after the Daubert decision. The most important reason is because the Daubert case contain contradictive factors in its reasoning. The scientific validity can not stand the sharpened attack from criticisms. There is no clear evidence that the legal standard about admissibility and probative force of scientific evidence has come to be settled. The view that scientific evidence is the best way to clarify the truth in criminal process was criticized in two ways. First, participants of criminal process usually do not have qualified scientists who can properly assess science in court. Second, the argument that trash science is widespread in criminal justice system come to get persuasive powers. The criticisms does not come to end for low-quality science but get to the perspective of paradigm shift for scientific evidence. Nonetheless, until now, the belief that science could rescue bad practice and system of criminal justice makes the problems more complex. For the eyes of some Korean scholars, to achieve justice more effectively in criminal justice system, science should be more often used to prove facts in courts. Also, the legal rule that reliability of evidence should rely on scientific validity express the hope for science. What is more necessary now is understanding pros and cons of science, to open up the door more widely to truth in a court. We should reassess every single scientific method and theory in forensic science area. If any error of a science cannot be totally eradicated, the reasonable reformation of criminal process must be the next option.
참고문헌 (95)
- 법과학을 적용한 형사사법의 선진화 방안(Ⅱ), "강지현", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2011)
- 김성규, "이른바 과학적 증거의 의의와 그 허용성의 판단- 증거능력에 있어서의 이른바 자연적 관련성의 관점에서 -", 형사정책연구, 15(3), pp.307~334 (2004), 한국형사정책연구원
- 형사정책과 사법개혁에 관한 조사·연구 및 평가(Ⅱ): 국민참여재판에 대한 참관 및 조사연구, "박미숙", 한국형사정책연구원, ~ (2008)
- 이규호, "민사소송법상 과학적 증거", 비교사법, 14(3), pp.199~240 (2007), 한국비교사법학회
- 신이철, "과학적인 감정자료를 기초로 한 감정서의 증거능력", 외법논집, 33(1), pp.547~579 (2009), 법학연구소
- 신동운, "신형사소송법 제3판" (2011), 홍문사
- 각국의 과학수사제도에 관한, "심희기", 대검찰청, ~ (2005)
- 심희기, "과학적·기술적 증거에 대한 한국법원의 태도", 한국형사정책연구원 추계 국제학술대회: 법과학과 형사정책 (2011), 한국형사정책연구원
- 황만성, "과학적 증거의 증거능력과 증명력", 형사정책연구, 18(3), pp.779~810 (2007), 한국형사정책연구원
- 임마누엘 칸트, "순수이성비판Ⅰ" (2011), 아카넷
- 쉴라 제서너프, "법정에선 과학" (2011), 동앙시아
- 찰스 길리스피, "객관성의 칼날 -과학의 역사에 관한 에세이-" (1999), 새물결
- "대법원 2009. 3. 12. 선고 2008도8486 판결", ~ (2009)
- "대법원 2007. 5. 10. 선고 2007도1950 판결", ~ (2007)
- "대법원 1983. 9. 13. 선고 83도712. 판결", ~ (1983)
- Ayala, Francisco J., "The Nature of Science and the Problem of Demarcation", ~ (1991)
- Berger, Margaret A., "Procedural Paradigms for Applying the Daubert Test", Minn. L. Rev, 78, pp.1345~ (1994)
- Brown, Harvey, "Procedural Issues under Daubert", Hous. L. Rev, 36, pp.1133~ (1999)
- Bronowski, Jacob, "the Common Sense of Science" (1978)
- Bryer, Stephen, "The Interdependence of Science and Law", JUDICATURE, 82, pp.24~ (1998)
- Bunge, Mario, "Causality and Modern Science 3d ed" (1979)
- Caudill David S., "Junk Philosophy of Science?: The Paradox of Expertise and Interdisciplinarity in Federal Courts", Wash. & Lee L. Rev, 57, pp.685~ (2000)
- Caudill David S., "No Magic Wand: The Idealizatioin of Science in Law", ~ (2006)
- Cooley, Craig M., "Forensic Science and Capitial Punishment Reform: An Intellectually Honest Assessment", Geo Mason U. Civ. Rights L.J, 17, pp.299~ (2007)
- Cooley, Craig M, "Reforming the Forensic Community to Avert the Ultimate Injustice", Stan. L. ＆ Pol'y Rev, 15, pp.381~ (2004)
- Copleston, Fredrick, "A History of Philosohpy", ~ (1985)
- Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper, "The Federal Circuit: A Continuing Experiment in Specialization", Case W. Res. L. Rev, 54, pp.769~ (2004)
- Dampler, William C., "A History of Science and its Relations with Philosophy and Religion 4th ed.", pp.396~ (1949)
- Elliott, E. Donald, "Toward Incentive-Based Procedure: Three Approaches for Regulating Scientific Evidence", B.U. L. Rev, 69, pp.487~ (1989)
- Faigman, David L., "The Battered Woman Syndrome in the Age of Science", Ariz. L. Rev, 39, pp.67~ (1997)
- Farrell, Margaret G., "Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Epistemiology and Legal Process", Cardozo L. Rev, 15, pp.2183~ (1994)
- Feldman, Heidi Li, "Science and Uncertainty in Mass Exposure Litigation", Tex. L. Rev, 74, pp.1~ (1995)
- Ferguson, John H., "Interpreting Scientific Evidence: Comparing the National Institute of Health Consensus Development Program and Courts of Law", Judges' J, 31, pp.21~ (1997)
- Findelstein, Michael O., "Quantitative Methods in Law: Studies in the Application of Mathematical Probability and Statistics to Legal Problems" (1978)
- Foster, Kenneth R., "Judging Science: Scientific Knowledge and the Federal Courts" (1999)
- Garrett, Brandon L., "Judging Innocence", Colum. L. Rev, 108, pp.81~ (2008)
- Garrett, Brandon L., "Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions", Va. L. Rev, 95, pp.1~ (2009)
- Gershman, Bennett L., "Misuse of Scientific Evidence by Prosecutors", Okla. City U. L. Rev, 28, pp.17~ (2003)
- Giannelli, Paul C., "Daubert Challenges to Fingerprints", Crim. Law Bulletin ART, 42(5), pp.6~ (2006)
- Giannelli, Paul C., "Wrongful Convictions and Forensic Science: The Need to Regulate Crime Labs", N.C.L. Rev, 86, pp.163~ (2007)
- Giannelli, Paul C., "Bite Mark Analysis", Crim. L. Bull, 43, pp.930~ (2007)
- Giannelli, Paul C., "Freidman, Susan, The National Academy of Sciences' Forensic Report", Crim. Law Bulletin ART, 45(6), pp.9~ (2009)
- Green, Michael D, "Expert Witnesses and Sufficiency of Evidence in Toxic Substances Litigation: The Legacy of Agent Orange and Bendectin Litigation", Nw.U.L.Rev, 86, pp.643~ (1992)
- Hempel, Carl G., "Philosophy of Natural Science" (1966)
- Hempel, Carl G., "Studies in the Logic of Confirmation, In Aspects of Scientific Explanation and Other Essays in the Philosophy of Science" (1965)
- Hempel, Carl G., "The Logic of Functional Analysis, In Aspects of Scientific Explanation in the Philosophy of Science" (1965)
- Jasanoff, Sheila, "What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science", Jurimerics J, 32, pp.345~ (1992)
- Jurs, Andrew W., "Science Court: Past Proposals, Current Considerations, and a Suggested Structure", Va.J.L. & Tech, 15, pp.1~ (2010)
- Kantrowitz, Arthur, "Controlling Technology Democratically", Am.Scientist, 63, pp.505~ (1975)
- Kantrowitz, Arthur, "Proposal for an Institution for Scientific Judgment", SCI, 156, pp.763~ (1967)
- Kennedy, Ludovic, "The Airman and the Carpenter" (1985)
- Kreiling, Kenneth R., "Scientific Evidence: Toward Providing the Lay Trier with the Comprehensible and Reliable Evidence Necessary to Meet the Goals of the Rules of Evidence", Ariz. L. Rev, 32, pp.915~ (1990)
- Kuhn, Thomas S., "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2d ed" (1970)
- Lkatos, Imre, "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge" (1970)
- Lilienfeld, Abraham M., "Foundation of Epidemiology" (1980)
- Lustre, Alice B., "Post-Daubert Standards for Admissibility of Scientific and Other Expert Evidence in State Courts", pp.453~ (2001), A.L.R.5th
- Martin, James A., "The Proposed "Science Court"", Mich. L. Rev, 75, pp.1058~ (1977)
- Merton, Robert K., "A Note on Science and Technology in a Democratic Order", J. Legal & Pol. Soc, 1, pp.115~ (1942)
- Milich, Paul S., "Controversial Science in the Courtroom: Daubert and the Law’s Hubris", Emory L.J, 43, pp.913~ (1994)
- Mnookin, Jennifer L., "The Validity of Latent Fingerprint Identification: Confession of a Fingerprinting Moderate", Law, Probability & Risk, 7, pp.127~ (2008)
- Mnookin, Jennifer L., "The Need for a Research Culture in the Forensic Sciences", UCLA L.Rev, 58, pp.725~ (2011)
- Mnookin, Jennifer L., "Fingerprints: Not a Gold Standard", Issues In Sci.&Tech, 20, pp.47~ (2003)
- Mosteller, Robert P., "Syndromes and Politics in Criminal Trials and Evidence Law", Duke L.J, 46, pp.461~ (1996)
- Nace, Barry J., "Reaction to Daubert", Shepard's Expert & Sci. Evidence Q, 1, pp.51~ (1993)
- National Research Council, "Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States" (2009)
- Note, "Admitting Doubt: A New Standard for Scientific Evidence", Harv. L. Rev, 123, pp.2021~ (2010)
- Pretty, Iain A., "The Scientific Basis for Human Bitemark Analyses-A Critical Review", SCI. & Just, 41, pp.85~ (2001)
- Pokorak, Jeffrey J., "Unintended Consequences of the Scientific Evidence Requirement", Ind. L.J, 80, pp.75~ (2005)
- Popper, Karl R., "Conjectures and Refutations, the Growth of Scientific Knowledge 5th ed" (1989)
- Popper, Karl R., "Objective Knowledge" (1972)
- Popper, Karl R., "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" (1965)
- Risinger, D. Michael, "The Daubert", Kumho Implications of Observer Effects in Forensic Science: Hidden Problems of expectation and Suggestion, 2002, pp.90, 1~
- Risinger, D. Michael, "Exorcism of Ignorance as a Proxy for Rational Knowledge: The Lessons of Handwriting Identification "Expertise"", U.Pa.L.Rev, 137, pp.731~ (1989)
- Schroeder, Jeanne L., "Abduction from the Seraglio: Feminist Methodologies and the Logic of Imagination", Tex. L. Rev, 70, pp.109~ (1991)
- Selavka, Carl M., "A Scientist's Perspective on Forensic Science", Ind. L.J, 80, pp.72~ (2005)
- Stacey, Robert B., "Report on the Erroneous Fingerprint Individualization in the Madrid Train Bombing Case", J. Forensic Identification, 54, pp.706~ (2004)
- Strier, Franklin, "Making Jury Trials More Truthful", U.C. Davis L.Rev, 30, pp.95~ (1996)
- Treadwell, Marc T., "Evidence", Mercer L. Rev, 61, pp.135~ (2009)
- Walker, Lenore E., "A Response to Elizabeth M. Schneider's Describing and Changing: Women's Self-Defense Work and the Problem of Expert Testimony on Battering", Women's Rts. L. Rep, 9, pp.223~ (1986)
- "Blackwell v. Wyeth, 971 A.2d 235 (Md. 2009)", ~ (2009)
- "Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S.Ct. 2705", ~ (2011)
- "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical, Inc., 509 U.S. 579", ~ (1993)
- "Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 727 F. Supp. 570 (S.D. Cal. 1989)", ~ (1989)
- "DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 791 F. Supp. 1042 (D.N.J. 1992)", ~ (1992)
- "DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941 (3d Cir. 1990)", ~ (1990)
- "Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)", ~ (1923)
- "Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137", ~ (1999)
- "Reed v. Maryland, 391 A.2d 364 (Md. 1978)", ~ (1978)
- "Reilly v. United States, 665 F. Supp. 976 (D.R.I. 1987)", ~ (1987)
- "United States v. Green, 405 F.Supp 2d 104 (D. Mass. 2005)", ~ (2005)
- "United States v. Horn, 185 F. Supp. 2d 530 (D. Md. 2002)", ~ (2002)
- "United States v. Katz, 178 F.3d 368 (1999)", ~ (1999)
- "United States v. Monterio, 407 F.Supp.2d. 351 (D.Mass. 2006)", ~ (2006)
- "United States v. Starzecpyzel, 880 F. Supp. 1027 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)", ~ (1995)
- "Williamson v. Reynolds, 904 F. Supp. 1529 (E.D. Okla. 1995)", ~ (1995)