Takeichi H, Iwase H, Kobayashi M, Kai I, Yoshida K
Department of Forensic Medicine, Graduate School of Medicine, University of Tokyo.
Nihon Hoigaku Zasshi. 2000 Nov;54(3):399-407.
We carried out a questionnaire survey on judicial apprentices with a case died of subarachnoid hemorrhage to examine whether the expression of the text and supplementary explanation of the expert opinion affect judicial decisions and findings of facts. The survey results suggest that both the expressions of the text and the supplementary explanation may have an effect on the decision. That is, judicial apprentices who read the text expressed that "it was not clear whether the subarachnoid hemorrhage was traumatic or not" with the explanation are less likely to indict for injury resulting in death than those who read the text expressed that "it was not contradictory that the subarachnoid hemorrhage was traumatic" without the explanation. Additionally, we found that these two factors affected the reader's findings of fact. Particularly, the text expressed that "it was not contradictory" without a supplementary explanation is prone to give a conclusive conviction to readers. These results suggest that how a medical diagnosis would be legally interpreted in court depend to some extent upon the expression and the supplementary explanation of the expert opinion. The text of an expert opinion should be expressed to report the medical diagnosis exactly. When autopsy cannot determine the definitive cause of the death, detailed explanation should be supplemented lest the expert opinion give a conclusive conviction. Moreover, we suggest that it is necessary to standardize the form and expression of the expert opinion hereafter.
