NGO Version of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Expert Evidence Chapter) Amendment (Including Comparison with Judicial Yuan and Executive Yuan Versions)

Last edited: April 17, 2023

General Explanation of the NGO Draft
(Similarities and Differences with the Judicial Yuan and Executive Yuan Versions)

1. Polygraph results reflect subjective opinions presented after questioning the examinee through certain methods regarding the existence of facts, the course of events, and opinions or judgments thereon. Since they cannot objectively prove facts, they naturally cannot be used as evidence to determine the existence of criminal facts. In this regard, the Judicial Yuan's version adding the text of Article 160-1 is a matter of course. However, considering that even if polygraph results are used as impeachment evidence, they still hinder the discovery of truth in practice and pose the risk of causing wrongful convictions, and the quality of polygraph results as scientific evidence is indeed questionable, it is necessary to directly exclude the admissibility of polygraph results as evidence (adding Article 160-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

2. Since the main institutions responsible for forensic evaluation in our country are mostly established under investigative authorities, in order to ensure their neutrality, it is provided that experts, when preparing or submitting professional opinions or materials related to the case, must also disclose whether they have participated in the investigative procedure or assisted in investigating crimes. Furthermore, under the modified adversary system, where the status of the parties is equal, when experts are required to disclose their division of labor and cooperative relationship with defense counsel, they should simultaneously be required to disclose their division of labor and cooperative relationship with the other party, namely the prosecutor. Therefore, Subparagraph 2 is newly added to disclose whether there is a division of labor or cooperative relationship between the expert and the prosecutor for the sake of clarity (adding Paragraph 2, Subparagraph 1 of Article 198, and amending Subparagraph 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

3. To clarify that the defendant and their defense counsel have the right to express opinions on the selection of experts during investigation and trial, the wording is adjusted for clarity (adding Article 198-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

4. To cope with the new system under which evidence may be submitted to an expert commissioned by a party upon the party's application, and to ensure the identity and integrity of the evidence during the process of delivery and return, provisions shall be made regarding the state of the evidence and the method of delivery upon delivery and return, as well as the handling methods in case the expert examination method may damage or exhaust the evidence (adding Articles 198-3 and 198-4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

5. To align with the newly added Article 198-3 of the NGO version, this is concurrently stipulated as a mandatory item to be included in the expert report, ensuring the state of the evidence when the expert receives the evidentiary object (adding Paragraph 3, Subparagraph 1 of Article 206 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

 

Attachments

Articles and Comparison Table of the NGO Version of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Expert Evidence Chapter)