공판중심주의가 법의학적 감정에 미치는 영향

A effect that the expert opinion on the forensic Medicine is influenced in the connection with court-oriented Trials

&nbsp;&nbsp;The use of the expert opinion on the forensic Medicine is faced a new aspect in the connection with court-oriented Trials. In Future, Courts will be frequently confronted with sofisticated techniques such as fingerprints, polygraph, DNA profiling. Especially, With relation to the judicial Reform in Korea, which is limiting the use of confessions, the use of the expert opinion on the forensic Medicine will be greatly increased in the foreseeable future.<BR>&nbsp;&nbsp;In America, According to Frye test in 1923, the Frye “general acceptance” test became the dominant standard to determine the admissibility of testimony for more than half a century. But in 1993, the Supreme Court settled the issue, holding in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals that the “austere standard” of Frye, that “made ‘general acceptance’ the exclusive test for admitting expert scientific testimony”, was “incompatible with the Federal Rules and should not be applied in federal trials”. If nothing else, the 2000 amendmend to Rule 702(Testimony by Experts) might provide better insight into why expert testimony is being admitted or excluded. Namely, Rule 702 requires that a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. Although the expert witness of Korea is different from the American conuterparts, Federal Rules and Trials will be a good model to Korea courts.