Verification of the expert’s opinion
Abstract
The expert’s opinion must be checked and evaluated by the subject of the evidence in accordance with the procedural law. The analysis of the literature shows that scientists mainly focus on assessment problems, neglecting the issue of verifying the expert’s opinion. This is due to the fact that processual scientists perceive verification as a type of collection, research, and evaluation of evidence in the theory of evidence. It has been proven that the verification of evidence in general and the expert’s opinion in particular differ from other elements of the proof process in terms of objects, purpose, and methods of implementation.
The objects of examination of the expert’s opinion are doubtful circumstances regarding certain aspects of the conducted examination and contradictions between the expert's conclusions and other evidence. The purpose of checking the expert’s opinion is to confirm or eliminate, to refute doubts about the admissibility and reliability of the expert’s opinion and contradictions of the results of the examination with the circumstances already established in the criminal proceedings. The subject of the inspection coincides with the assessment and consists in determining the admissibility and reliability of the expert’s conclusion as a source of evidence and factual data established by expert research. Verification of the expert’s opinion is carried out by conducting procedural and non-procedural measures aimed at obtaining new data.
Procedural measures include: appointment of a new examination to resolve the same questions from the study of the same objects under inspection; interrogation of the expert and other participants in the criminal proceedings in order to establish the circumstances relating to the subject of the examination, as well as information on the peculiarities of the origin, existence, exploitation, seizure, storage of objects of examination; demand for objects and documents that can establish the factual data necessary in the case; receiving oral consultations and written explanations from a specialist (non-procedural measures provide indicative information through consultations with specialists and receiving a review of the expert’s opinion from them); familiarization of the initiator of the appointment of expertise with the scientific and methodical literature for comparison of the conducted expert research in accordance with the requirements existing in the expert field.
Downloads
References
Kaplina O.V. and Shylo O.H. (eds), 2019. Criminal process [Kryminalnyi protses]. Kharkiv: Pravo.
Zhogin N.V. (Ed.), 1973. The theory of evidence in the Soviet criminal process [Teoriya dokazatel’stv v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse]. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura.
Arsen’ev V.D., 1964. Questions of the general theory of judicial evidence in the Soviet criminal process [Voprosy obshchei teorii sudebnykh dokazatel’stv v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse]. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura.
Belkin A.R., 2007. Theory of evidence in criminal proceedings [Teoriya dokazyvaniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve]. Moscow: Norma.
Larin A.M., 1986. Criminal investigation: procedural functions [Rassledovanie po ugolovnomu delu: protsessual’nye funktsii]. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura.
Sibilova N.V., 2005. Modern problems of the organization and functioning of the judiciary in Ukraine [Suchasni problemy orhanizatsii ta funktsionuvannia v Ukraini sudovoi vlady]. Pitannâ borotʹbi zì zločinnìstû – Issues of Crime Prevention, Iss. 10, pp. 79-89.
Vorobchak A.R., 2019. Expert opinion as a source of evidence in criminal proceedings [Vysnovok eksperta yak dzherelo dokaziv u kryminalnomu provadzhenni]. Ph.D. dissertation. National University “Odesa Law Academy”.
Tatsii V.Ya., Hroshevyi Yu.M., Kaplina O.V. and Shylo O.H. (eds), 2013. Criminal process [Kryminalnyi protses]. Kharkiv: Pravo.
Rozhnova V.V., Savutskyi D.O., Koniushenko Ya.Yu. et al., 2012. Course of lectures on criminal procedure according to the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (general part) [Kurs lektsii z kryminalnoho protsesu za novym Kryminalnym protsesualnym kodeksom Ukrainy (zahalna chastyna)]. Kyiv: Natsionalna akademiia vnutrishnikh sprav.
Vapniarchuk V.V., 2017. Theory and practice of criminal procedural evidence [Teoriia i praktyka kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia]. Kharkiv: Yurait.
Mikheenko M.M., 1984. Evidence in Soviet criminal proceedings [Dokazyvanie v sovetskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve]. Kiev.
Volobuieva O.O., Loboiko L.M., Loskutov T.O. et al., 2015. Criminal process of Ukraine. General part [Kryminalnyi protses Ukrainy. Zahalna chastyna]. Kyiv: Dakor.
Loboiko L.N., 2007. Criminal Procedure Law [Ugolovno-protsessual’oe pravo]. Kharkov: Odissei.
Sorkin V.S., 2002. Features of procedural evidence in criminal proceedings [Osobennosti protsessual’nogo dokazyvaniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve]. Grodno: Grodnenskii gosudarstvennyi universitet.
Tertyshnyk V.M., 2014. Criminal process of Ukraine. General part [Kryminalnyi protses Ukrainy. Zahalna chastyna]. Kyiv: Alerta.
Kret H.R., 2018. Verification of evidence in the structure of criminal procedural evidence [Perevirka dokaziv u strukturi kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia]. Vìsnik Pìvdennogo regìonalʹnogo centru Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï pravovih nauk Ukraïni – Journal of the South Regional Center of National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, Iss. 15, pp. 143-150.
Orlov Yu.K., 2009. Problems of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings [Problemy teorii dokazatel’stv v ugolovnom protsesse]. Moscow: Yurist.
Vandyshev V.V., 2002. Criminal process [Ugolovnyi protsess]. St. Petersburg: Piter.
Komissarchuk Yu.A. and Soroka S.O., 2012. The concept, content and methods of checking evidence in criminal procedural evidence [Poniattia, zmist i sposoby perevirky dokaziv u kryminalno-protsesualnomu dokazuvanni]. Mytna sprava, No. 2, Part 2, Book 2, pp. 232-237.
Kovalenko Ye.H., 2004. Criminal process of Ukraine [Kryminalnyi protses Ukrainy]. Kyiv: Yurinkom Inter.
Shcherbakovskyi M.H., 2015. Conducting and using forensic examinations in criminal proceedings [Provedennia ta vykorystannia sudovykh ekspertyz u kryminalnomu provadzhenni]. Kharkiv: U spravi.
Shcherbakovskyi M.H., 2017. Consultative function of a specialist in criminal proceedings [Konsultatsiina funktsiia spetsialista u kryminalnomu provadzhenni]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaâ èkspertiza – Criminalistics and Forensics, Iss. 62, pp. 43-51.
Shcherbakovskyi M.H., 2020. Review of the conclusion of a court expert and the written explanation of the specialist: Similarity and difference [Retsenziya zaklyucheniya sudebnogo eksperta i pis’mennoe raz’’yasnenie spetsialista: skhodstvo i razlichie]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaâ èkspertiza – Criminalistics and Forensics, Iss. 65, pp. 52-63.
Copyright (c) 2022 M. H. Shcherbakovskyi, М. V. Dementiev
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
