官方看管下发生的死亡个案频发引起公众和媒体的广泛关注，相关主体处理不善导致死者家属及公众对公权力行使之合法性的质疑；个案中死因鉴定争议又进一步加剧了司法公信力危机，给我国刑事司法体系造成消极影响。公权力滥用不仅有损司法权威，侵犯死者生命权及死者家属合法权益，降低民众对个案公平正义的期待，更有损民众对社会主义法治建设的信心。然而，我国现行死因调查程序颇为粗疏，无法提供充分、有效的救济。建构独立的、体系性的死因调查制度在当下确有必要性和紧迫性，不仅可起到遏制、防范非自然死亡事件发生，及保障司法人权的作用，而且是我国深化司法体制改革、深入推进依法治国不可或缺的一环。 本文主要研究死因调查制度中的程序问题与证据问题。就死因调查程序而言，本文比较研究了域外死因调查制度的三种模式，立足本国现实分析外国法利弊，中肯地提出域外法有益借鉴之处。独立性的死因调查程序以查明死因及其他与死亡相关的事实为首要目标，提高调查程序和结果的可接受性；还应当具备迅速及时性、公开性、有效性等基本特征。符合正当程序理念的死因调查制度应当具备如下程序要素：适用范围（主客观要素判断标准）；调查主体（死因调查法庭）；程序启动以“强制为主、裁量为辅”；调查手段（尸体检验、尸体解剖等）、死者家属的合法权益（被告知权、程序参权等）、调查的民众参与（吸纳外行民众参与并监督）、调查完结后的衔接程序（死因调查法庭作出裁决并予以公布，及其与后续程序等的衔接）等。针对死因调查制度中的证据问题，本文通过对现行法和司法实践的考察，对我国现行法刑事鉴定制度在鉴定人出庭、鉴定意见的审查判断、有专门知识人及其专门意见等方面存在的弊端予以解释。本文比较研究了美国法中的对质权体系，其所涵盖的“对质要求鉴定人出庭”、“鉴定人就其鉴定意见接受交叉询问”、“鉴定人不出庭时的鉴定意见仍需通过对质权检验”等内容可为死因鉴定意见的适用提供参照。我国法改革路径如下：以审判中心主义为统摄性原则，以确立被告人对质权并保障其得到充分、有效实现为核心，更新鉴定人出庭规则为“出庭为原则、不出庭为例外”，逐步明确专门知识人的诉讼地位并认可其意见的证据意义。
It is a fact that deaths under official custody attract spreading attention of both the public and the media. The government has not properly or promptly settled down the issues related to the fatal accidents, which accelerates the explosion of social contradictions, and brings about passive influences on China’s criminal justice system. Not only does the abuse of government power causes damage to the judicial credibility in addition to the judicial authority, but it also jeopardizes the human rights of the dead and their relatives. Additionally, the ambiguousness of the facts relevant to the death reduces the expectation level of individualized justice. The fundamental reason lies in the shortness of China’s effective death investigation laws. Therefore, it is inevitably necessary to establish the independent and effective death investigation system in China.After introducing and analyzing three modes of death investigation systems abroad, this article explores their inspiring mechanisms while reflecting China’s legislative and judicial facts, such as the Coroner’s Jury inquest proceedings from Anglo-American system and the judicial discretion on the necessity of post mortem autopsy from the civil law system.Death investigation is a quasi-judicial systems aiming at seeking the facts of the specific death incident in order to settle the issues in dispute. Furthermore, death investigation system also shows concerns on the acceptability of the investigative process and the final conclusion. When the unnatural in custody death is reported, there shall be death investigation proceedings initiated promptly, independently, impartially, publicly and effectively. This article then engages to emphasize several indispensable procedural factors required by a death investigation system of due process. This article additionally offers critical perspectives on China’s criminal forensic appraisal system. And this article strongly argues that it improperly invades the confrontation right of the accused when the statutes permit that the prosecution could produce the appraiser’s testimony even though she does not appear in court. This out-of-court testimony is also allowed in court without the accused’s impeachment and confrontation. By contrast, the constitution of the United States offers sufficient protection towards the accused’s confrontation right to cross-examine the witness against himself in court. As it is known to all, China is promoting the judicial system reform advocating that the trail centeredness doctrine shall be established by statutes and in judicial practice as well. In order to be genuinely applied, China’s relevant laws shall be revised to require the appraiser attend and be cross-examined in court unless under some special circumstances when it is objectively impossible for the prosecution to urge her attendance (such as the circumstances that she is dead or permanently missing or severely sick that she could not make it, and etc.). And then there shall be an opportunity for the defense to cross-examine her prior to the court trial.
