| In criminal procedure, there is a strict distinction between the common matters and the professional matters in terms of cognitive structure, distribution of the power of cognition, and the related rules of evidence. The Interpretation by the Supreme People's Court Regarding the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of PRC (2021) has confirmed the evidence status of reports on professional matters and reports on accident investigation, thereby establishing the basic pattern of dealing with professional matters in criminal procedure, namely the dominance by expert opinions and the coexistence of multiple forms of evidence. The traditional regulative model of expert evidence has the problem of proxy review. The quality control mechanism for the basic elements of new types of evidence is relatively weak, which means the judge should undertake more responsibilities in reviewing professional evidences. This requires judges to play the role of real gatekeepers and gradually realize the transition from formal review, which depends on expert opinions, to substantive review. The current regulatory framework of new types of evidence still has such problems as the ambiguity of the model of reference, the lack of legitimacy, and numerous conflicts between the traditional review framework centering on expert opinions and new types of evidence. Based on the existing judicial practice, China should reconstruct a more inclusive framework of substantive review of professional evidences to further strengthen the review of the competence and the professional knowledge of experts and their professional inference process. |
京公网安备11010102006664号 京ICP备2023015853号