Problem of estimating credibility of forensic expert's conclusion

The logical continuation of the process of collectionand examination of evidence is their estimation. It is necessary to say that both the Theory of Criminal Procedure and Criminalisticshave no clear definition of estimation of evidence. Some authors characterize it as a ''logical process of understanding the role ofcollected evidence in order to state the truth'', others indicate that estimation of evidence is to be understood as an activity, as a result ofthis activity and as a legal action. Emphasizing the significance of estimation of evidence, some authors say that on the whole it is the''heart'' of criminal procedure. At the same time these authors make it clear that their opinion should not diminish the importance of otherelements of evidence - its collection and examination. According to Clause 3, Part 2, Article 74 of the Criminal Procedural Code of theRussian Federation, one of the evidence in criminal procedure is an expert's conclusion, which contains information about the factsobtained by means of special knowledge. These facts, in their turn, are used for ascertaining necessary circumstances significant formaking an objective decision in the given case. In many cases the algorithm of estimation of forensic expert's conclusion can beestablished on the basis of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Russian Federation Supreme Court of December 21, 2010 # 28 ''Onforensic expertise in criminal cases''. The Plenum stressed that while estimating an expert's conclusion it is necessary to establishrelevance, credibility and admissibility. Accordingly, the activity of the parties of the case connected with the estimation of a forensicexpert's conclusion should be performed in the same order. The main task of estimation of the conclusion is to define whether thequestioned can be used as evidence. It is necessary to take into account that within criminal procedure the estimation of forensic expert'sconclusion has its peculiarities and difficulties. The main difficulty is that an expert's conclusion is a document containing thedescription of the research done by a person with special knowledge and the conclusions on the questions an expert is asked areestimated by the subject conducting a criminal case without special knowledge in the mentioned sphere. A large number of departmentalinstructions (often contradicting each other), methodological directions and special terminology the content of which needs someunderstanding represent peculiar difficulties when estimating the expert's conclusion by the subjects who are responsible for thisestimation. All the mentioned circumstances predetermine the necessity of involving specialists into the cooperation both at this stageand at further stages of estimating the expert's conclusion. This will encourage not only formation of evidence in crimes but also findingthe ways of its further usage as a basis for forming individual criminalistic versions are formed. These versions determine thecorresponding behaviour of the investigator in such crimes.

Keywords

Authors

References