Certain Issues of Judicial Evaluation of an Expert’s Opinion

E. V. Elagina
{"title":"Certain Issues of Judicial Evaluation of an Expert’s Opinion","authors":"E. V. Elagina","doi":"10.19073/2658-7602-2022-19-4-384-398","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article deals with local issues of assessing an expert’s opinion: the legality of the subject of initiating a forensic examination and the direct subject of its production. The scope of the Author’s interests, teaching experience and scientific activity make it possible to classify these issues as “latent”, since their non-obviousness is determined both by the established law judicial practice and by the imperfection of the legal regulation of forensic examination in criminal proceedings. Along with the main issues, attention is paid to the genesis of the institution of forensic examination in criminal proceedings, which aims to demonstrate the continuity of its legal regulation, and also to draw attention to the fact that some approaches used by the legislator in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR could be preserved in the current criminal procedure law, which would not only prevent the occurrence of a number of issues with the law enforcement officer, but would also serve as an optimization of the production of comprehensive examinations. Evaluation of an expert opinion is a multifaceted intellectual activity that involves the resolution of a complex of procedural and substantive issues. The objects of assessment, along with the expert's opinion, are also procedural documents, which reflect all the actions, the production of which ensured the preparation and appointment of the examination. The list of criteria that the expert opinion must satisfy is standard for all evidence – admissibility, relevance and reliability (part 1 of article 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), but at the same time, the assessment of each of the properties of the evidence “expert’s opinion” should be carried out taking into account the specifics of its formations. At the same time, when evaluating the admissibility of the expert’s opinion, it is necessary to pay attention to data indicating the legality / illegality of the subject of initiating a forensic examination and the direct subject of its production. The Author insists on the need for the subject of the assessment to know the content of the expert's opinion of the entire required set of normative sources and emphasizes that there should be constant monitoring of changes to existing regulations, as well as the publication of new ones related to the area under consideration.","PeriodicalId":33294,"journal":{"name":"Sibirskoe iuridicheskoe obozrenie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sibirskoe iuridicheskoe obozrenie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19073/2658-7602-2022-19-4-384-398","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article deals with local issues of assessing an expert’s opinion: the legality of the subject of initiating a forensic examination and the direct subject of its production. The scope of the Author’s interests, teaching experience and scientific activity make it possible to classify these issues as “latent”, since their non-obviousness is determined both by the established law judicial practice and by the imperfection of the legal regulation of forensic examination in criminal proceedings. Along with the main issues, attention is paid to the genesis of the institution of forensic examination in criminal proceedings, which aims to demonstrate the continuity of its legal regulation, and also to draw attention to the fact that some approaches used by the legislator in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR could be preserved in the current criminal procedure law, which would not only prevent the occurrence of a number of issues with the law enforcement officer, but would also serve as an optimization of the production of comprehensive examinations. Evaluation of an expert opinion is a multifaceted intellectual activity that involves the resolution of a complex of procedural and substantive issues. The objects of assessment, along with the expert's opinion, are also procedural documents, which reflect all the actions, the production of which ensured the preparation and appointment of the examination. The list of criteria that the expert opinion must satisfy is standard for all evidence – admissibility, relevance and reliability (part 1 of article 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), but at the same time, the assessment of each of the properties of the evidence “expert’s opinion” should be carried out taking into account the specifics of its formations. At the same time, when evaluating the admissibility of the expert’s opinion, it is necessary to pay attention to data indicating the legality / illegality of the subject of initiating a forensic examination and the direct subject of its production. The Author insists on the need for the subject of the assessment to know the content of the expert's opinion of the entire required set of normative sources and emphasizes that there should be constant monitoring of changes to existing regulations, as well as the publication of new ones related to the area under consideration.
专家意见司法鉴定的若干问题
这篇文章讨论了评估专家意见的地方问题:启动法医检查的主体的合法性及其产生的直接主体。作者的兴趣范围、教学经验和科学活动使人们有可能将这些问题归类为“潜在”问题,因为它们的不明显性既取决于既定的法律司法实践,也取决于刑事诉讼中法医检验法律法规的不完善。除了主要问题外,还注意到刑事诉讼中法医检查制度的起源,该制度旨在证明其法律法规的连续性,并提请注意立法者在《刑事诉讼法》中使用的一些方法可以在现行刑事诉讼法中保留,这不仅可以防止执法人员出现一些问题,还可以优化综合考试的制作。评估专家意见是一项多方面的智力活动,涉及解决复杂的程序性和实质性问题。评估对象以及专家意见也是程序性文件,反映了所有行动,这些行动的产生确保了考试的准备和任命。专家意见必须满足的标准清单是所有证据的标准——可采性、相关性和可靠性(俄罗斯联邦《刑事诉讼法》第88条第1部分),但同时,对“专家意见”证据的每一项属性的评估都应考虑到其形成的具体情况。与此同时,在评估专家意见的可受理性时,有必要注意表明启动法医检查的主体和其直接出示主体的合法性/非法性的数据。提交人坚持认为,评估对象需要了解专家对所需整套规范性来源的意见的内容,并强调应不断监测现有法规的变化,以及公布与审议领域有关的新法规。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
21 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书