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.