Inspection Cross Expertise in Criminal Procedure

Abstract

<em>In criminal procedural law, we know that to prove that an event was a criminal event, a mechanism is needed which is not simple. In the Criminal Code, it is stated that it must fulfill several conditions for an event to be included in the category of a criminal act, namely that it must go through just evidence, of course in fair proof it must be supported by evidence stipulated in Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition to witness statements, there is also evidence from expert testimony. The expert gap is mentioned in Article 1 number 28, namely information given by someone with special expertise on matters needed to explain a criminal case for examination purposes. Then, sometimes the examination of a case by a judge requires expert testimony from various fields of science which implies that several experts must be presented who can clarify a case, here the question arises when these experts are presented, especially in expert examinations whose fields are contradictory to each other, so that cross-examination can be carried out. experts. In addition, problems that arise in criminal trials related to expert testimony are related to the time or when (timing) the expert is presented, so far we both know that after the statement of the defendant, the examination of evidence is considered to have ended. However, often the public prosecutor, legal advisers, and the judge himself want to dig deeper into the case being examined, especially about expert testimony, this is where a problem is found because the procedural rules have not been clearly explained, while the nature of procedural law itself is rigid and <span style="text-decoration: underline;">limitations.</span></em>