The case-handling agency failed to provide appraisal opinions [public security investigation stage]

Identification opinions are one of the types of evidence in the criminal litigation field and are an important basis for ascertaining the facts of the case and solving certain specialized issues in the case.

The appraisal opinions used as evidence are directly related to the determination of the facts of the case, are of great significance to all aspects of the criminal proceedings, and have a direct stake in the suspects and victims. The investigative agency shall inform the suspects and victims of the appraisal opinions used as evidence. If the suspect or victim applies for supplementary identification or re-identification, this reflects the protection of the litigation rights of all parties.

However, in judicial practice, some investigative agencies often only inform the suspects and victims in writing of the conclusion of the appraisal opinion in the form of a notice of appraisal opinion. They do not provide any information on the qualifications, procedures, processes, methods, etc. of the appraisal agency and appraisers. be informed. These contents are often important factors in reviewing whether the appraisal opinions are true and reliable and whether they are qualified as evidence. Compared with the content of notification of appraisal opinions in administrative cases, the content of notification of appraisal opinions in criminal proceedings needs to be expanded.

Articles 254 and 255 of the "Procedural Regulations for the Handling of Criminal Cases by Public Security Organs" stipulate the circumstances in which supplementary identification and re-identification are required, such as if the identification procedure is illegal or violates relevant professional and technical requirements; the identification institution and the appraiser do not have the qualifications and conditions for identification, etc.

The situations listed in the above regulations that require supplementary identification and re-identification are important contents for the case-handling agency to review the identification opinions. At the same time, they should also be an important concern for the suspects and victims to know the relevant identification opinions. However, this must be based on their knowledge of the identification opinions. On top of that. If the public security organs do not fulfill their full notification obligations and the suspects and victims are unable to apply for re-identification, the so-called supplementary identification or re-identification litigation rights will be difficult to effectively exercise.

In practice, dangerous driving cases usually require two alcohol content determinations. The first is a breath alcohol test, and the latter is a blood alcohol content determination, that is, a blood test. Considering that the alcohol content is the key evidence to determine whether the perpetrator is drunk driving, FasterLawyer recommends that lawyers should pay special attention to the authenticity and legality of the appraisal opinions when handling such cases. If one of the above two rounds of identification is missing, it is a procedural violation. In addition, we can start from matters such as whether alcohol disinfectant was used and whether there were witnesses when taking blood samples to strive for a better outcome of the case.

For situations where the case-handling agency fails to pay or inform the suspect of the appraisal opinion, the lawyer should communicate with the case-handling agency in a timely manner, submit written opinions when necessary, and clearly require the case-handling agency to inform the suspect of the appraisal opinion to protect the suspect's right to know and to apply for reconsideration and other litigation rights.