Since the occurrence of road traffic accidents, the evidence related to the causes of the accident, have been probably collected and cited. For a criminal litigation case, not only the evidence police collected from the accident scene, there are also the police preliminary investigation description, the expertise of the investigation agency, and the deferred prosecution, being regarded as the professional opinion. The contents include the conclusion of the investigation of evidence related to the reconstruction, and rarely are excluded in the court. But truth is always only one, if the professional opinion is not consistent with another, that shows the evidence is ignored or misrepresented. Searching a local district court judgement database in January 2016, this study really found some expertise are not adopted by court. The case report is conducted, to analyze the method of the professional opinions indicate the facts, and the combination of the evidence and the dialectical process, using the actual information provided by the parties. The preliminary conclusion is that the oral evidence has a high explanatory strength, and the physical evidence has a higher degree of credibility, the evidence is cited selective, the evidence is not consistent with another probably and so on. Some of the information in the study could provide to the reconstruction community.
Keywords: Road Traffic accident(RTA), Reconstruction, Expertise, the Evidence Dialectic.
Citation information
Wu Chun Liang, Fang-Fang Luo, Ping-Fan Li, Studying the Evidence Combination and the Dialectic of Reconstruction- Case Report, The Traffic Safety and Law Enforcement Conference in 2017. (in Chinese)
Authors’ information
Corresponding author at: Summerhill RTA Research Foundation, No.96, Wufuxincun, Zhunan Township, Miaoli County 350, Taiwan (R.O.C.)
E-mail addresses: summerhill.org@gmail.com (Wu Chun Liang),
Tel: +886 37 582514