False Expert Research Articles

False opinion or false alarm? About the criminal liability of an expert for giving a false opinion

This article aims to address the significance of the problem regarding the issuance of false expert opinions in practice. This issue is of great importance and considerably consequential for the public opinion. An expert opinion that is unfavorable to a party often raises suspicions of bribery and manipulation. However, not every litigant’s dissatisfaction necessarily implies a criminal offense. This article highlights the magnitude of the problem of false expert opinions in the Polish justice system and the consequential effects associated with it. In the preparation of the article, a review of domestic and international literature and an analysis of criminal case files on the offence of Article 233 § 4 of the Penal Code were used. The results of the research show that the issue of the crime of issuing a false opinion by an expert has not yet received a comprehensive analysis in the domestic and international literature. The number of criminal cases concerning the issuance of a false opinion by an expert is not significant. Courts usually acquit defendants of this offence which may mean that it is difficult to prove in practice. However, the problem is not as high profile as it presents itself to the public. The results of the research can be used to supplement theoretical considerations of the issue. The results can also be used by practitioners to introduce changes to increase the effectiveness of prosecuting the perpetrators of these crimes or to analyse legislative changes.

Criminal Liability for Knowingly False Expert Opinion in the Field of Procurement of Goods, Works and Services to Meet State and Municipal Needs: Pro et Contra

In 2018, a new norm was introduced into the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on criminal liability for knowingly false expert evidence in the procurement of goods, works, and services to meet state and municipal needs. At the same time, administrative liability was introduced for a similar offense. Such comprehensive regulation was aimed at increasing the efficiency of theft prevention mechanisms when purchasing goods, works, and services to meet state and municipal needs. The “package” introduction of the two most stringent types of legal liability was received positively by the scientific community. On the one hand, filling the identified gap should be considered necessary, but on the other hand, an analysis of judicial practice shows that these provisions of the criminal law and legislation on administrative offenses are not reflected in law enforcement practice, and illegal acts are characterized by high latency. A study of foreign legislation has shown that there are no provisions for such a special crime as knowingly false expert opinion in the field of activity in question. The article presents various approaches of judicial authorities regarding the analyzed elements of crime and administrative offense in the field of procurement. The conclusions draw attention to the need for broad discussion of the issue of decriminalization of knowingly false expert opinion in the field of procurement.

The Time Hides It Deceptively

At the same time, the Pázmány Péter University stated as the reasons for the loss of employment that Dr. Orsós: “gave a series of false forensic opinions”, “gave a false expert opinion in the excavation of the Katyn mass graves”, “himself became a member of the SS”. The Verification Committee of the Hungarian Pázmány Péter University filed a denunciation on 13 July 1945 against “the war criminal university professors Dr. Ferenc Orsós, Dr. Károly Burger, Dr. József Boros, Dr. Gyula Darányi, who had escaped to Germany. On 28 May 1946, the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Budapest issued a letter of inquiry against Dr. Ferenc Orsós. In my opinion, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences should set an example to the current generations in respecting the high standards, in objectively appreciating the past generation of scientists and in having the moral fibre to be able to expose the mistakes of the past not only in form but also in substance. Cynical cowards, the great powers (the Soviet Union, the United States of America, England, France) have a huge responsibility in the Orsós affair. As can be seen from the above list, no academics from the Department of Medical Sciences have been rehabilitated. In my opinion, it must be clearly stated that this must never happen again, that the recognition of scientific and professional achievements is subordinated to the winds of politics.In my opinion, financial support should be sought from them to give Orsós the recognition he deserves in Hungarian and international public opinion. We propose that his ashes be brought home and reburied with military honours as an outstanding Hungarian personality of World War II.

Problems of the implementation of the principle of justice in the construction of sanctions norms of the Special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

The author examines in detail the problems of implementing the principle of justice in the construction of sanctions of criminal law norms of a special part of the current criminal law of the Russian Federation. The object of the study is public relations regulating the establishment of specific types and punishments within their specific limits for the seduction of specific crimes. The subject of the study is the norms of the current criminal law of the Russian Federation. The author pays special attention to the issues of compliance of certain types of punishments with the nature and degree of public danger of the crime. separately, the issues of the correlation of the sanctions of the norms of the part and the norms of the whole, the problems of establishing the lower limit of punishment in criminal sanctions are investigated. The scientific novelty lies in the developed and formulated theoretical foundations for the construction of criminal law sanctions aimed at implementing the principle of justice. The paper investigated the sanctions of new norms of a Special part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, such as "Knowingly false expert opinion in the field of procurement" (Article 200.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, several problems of implementing the principle of justice in the construction of criminal sanctions have been identified, and new ways of eliminating these problems have been proposed. The conclusion is substantiated on the ratio of sanctions of norms-part and norms-whole, sanctions of qualified and basic compositions, on the principles of establishing a fine as the main type of punishment in the sanctions of the norms of the Special Part of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as on the principles of establishing the lower limit of punishment in the form of imprisonment.

Methods of misleading the court or other authorized body

The article considers and substantiates the need to establish the method of committing a criminal offense as a central element of forensic characteristics. The works of leading domestic and foreign scientists who have studied the concept of the method of criminal offense, its meaning and relationship with other elements of forensic characterization are analyzed and studied. The concept of the method of committing a criminal offense has been comprehensively studied. It is established that most criminologists include a certain system of actions in the method of committing a criminal offense, which includes actions to prepare, commit and conceal. The need to develop a classification of methods of committing knowingly false methods of misleading the court or other authorized body, which will allow the investigator to establish as yet unknown elements of forensic characteristics, identify investigative situations during the investigation, timely assess the testimony and other evidence.
 The analysis of Article 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine was carried out and, depending on the method of action and its content, the following methods of misleading the court or other authorized body were identified:
 
 Providing knowingly false testimony.
 Compilation and / or submission of knowingly false expert opinion.
 Submission of knowingly unreliable or forged evidence.
 Compilation and / or submission of a knowingly false report of the appraiser.
 Compilation and / or submission of knowingly false translation.
 
 The article will consider in detail the methods identified by the author to provide knowingly false testimony, which include actions to prepare, commit and conceal. The ways of making a knowingly false expert opinion depending on the structure of this document are highlighted. The notion of evidence is analyzed and the ways of presenting knowingly unreliable or forged evidence are established. Depending on the procedure of property and property rights valuation, the author identifies ways to prepare, commit and conceal the preparation and submission of a knowingly false appraiser's report. Methods of knowingly incorrect translation are identified.

How to Be an Epistemic Trespasser

How to Be an Epistemic Trespasser

The effect of misinformation and inoculation: Replication of an experiment on the effect of false experts in the context of climate change communication.

An important communication strategy of climate skeptics is the use of fake experts, who act as spokespersons, although they do not possess any expertise in the field. One promising approach to tackle the effect of misinformation is inoculation. Previous research focuses on the United States, and the comparably low effect sizes of previous research call for further examination and consolidation. This study aims to complement those findings with data for Germany and replicates and extends an experiment by Cook et al. with a 2 × 2 between-subjects design. Our study confirms the importance of pre-existing worldviews for climate-related attitudes. Regarding the effects of misinformation messages and most notably, the effects of inoculation messages we could not replicate the findings of Cook et al.: At least in our setting, the misinformation message and also inoculation preceding misinformation had hardly any effect on the climate-related attitudes under study.

CRIMINOLOGICAL AND PENAL ASPECTS OF ISSUING A FALSE OPINION BY AN EXPERT WITNESS - DRAFT REPORT ON RESEARCH PROJECT WITH PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES IN THE LAW DETERMINING THE LEGAL STATUS OF EXPERT WITNESSES

Evidence in the form of an expert opinion is usually of key importance for settling a pending case in any type of proceedings. In some cases, the role of the expert witness is closer to that of a judge rather than that of a witness, since a judge who does not have special knowledge often has to use evidence given by an expert to render a judgement. For this reason, issuing a false expert opinion results in a very high risk of delivering a wrong and unfair decision in a given case, which in turn has a negative impact on the social perception of the functioning of the justice system. In the Polish Criminal Code, criminal responsibility for issuing a false opinion is stipulated in Article 233 (4) and (4a) of the Penal Code. At the same time, despite a very large number of reports of suspicion that a crime has been committed by an expert witness, only a negligible number of investigations result in a bill of indictment and a conviction, which causes virtual impunity of perpetrators and has a negative impact on the functioning of criminal justice. Due to the diagnosed research gap in this area, the need to investigate and describe the phenomenon of issuing false opinions by expert witnesses, both in normative and criminological terms, on the basis of empirical research, has been clearly seen. The main objective of the research has been to characterise the phenomenon in question on many levels and to determine its real extent, its etiology and symptomatology. An additional aim of the research has been the verifi cation of research hypotheses and recognition of the normative sphere of the expert witness’s status, expert evidence, and principles of responsibility for issuing false opinions. The research fi ndings have resulted in proposals of solutions aimed both at limiting the phenomenon of issuing false opinions and more effective prosecution of perpetrators of crimes under Article 233 (4) of the Penal Code, which in turn may translate into more effi cient functioning of the entire justice system, as expert witnesses and their work are an extremely important aspect of thereof. The conducted research has fully confi rmed the research hypotheses and precisely indicated defective areas of expert evidence, and consequently the need to introduce immediate legislative changes. Some of the research conclusions and de lege ferenda postulates were implemented into the amended provisions of the Penal Code in 2016, which fully confi rms their legitimacy. Unfortunately, there is still no legal act of statutory rank which would comprehensively regulate the status of expert witnesses and expert evidence.

CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR GIVING FALSE EXPERT CONCLUSIONS IN THE FIELD OF PURCHASING GOODS, WORKS, SERVICES

Illegal activities in the field of procurement of goods, works and services pose a threat not only to economic, but also to national security. The solution to this situation is possible only with an integrated approach, consisting not only in improving the efficiency of the regulatory authorities, but also in optimizing the current legislation. Article 107 of the Federal Law dated 05.04.2013 “On the contract system in the field of procurement of goods, work, services for the provision of state and municipal needs” provides the criminal liability of persons guilty of violating the laws of the Russian Federation and other regulatory legal acts on contract system in the field of procurement. However, until recently, the onset of criminal liability remained only “on paper”. The turning point in the criminal law regulation of relations in the field of public procurement was the year 2018, when federal laws were adopted that introduced amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation by criminalizing illegal acts in this sphere of public relations. One of the controversial articles by the structure of the criminal law elements is Article 200.6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which established criminal liability for giving a knowingly false expert opinion in the field of procurement of goods, works and services.

False Expert Reports by Psychologists Contracted by Car Insurance Companies

False Expert Reports by Psychologists Contracted by Car Insurance Companies

False Expert Report in Bulgarian and Russian Criminal Law

False Expert Report in Bulgarian and Russian Criminal Law

Some Aspects of Forensic Support in Antitrust Investigations

The paper examines the statutory regulation of expertise rendered in support of antitrust investigations. The legal nature of expert inquiry conducted in such cases is demonstrated to be similar to that provided by forensic expert witnesses. Recommendations are offered for ways to improve the statutory regulation of expertise provided in support of antitrust investigations. The recommendations address such questions as selection of experts, their rights enshrined in the competition law, as well as their liability for submitting a knowingly false expert opinion

False Expert Witness Testimony in a Medical Negligence Case

In order to successfully litigate a claim for medical negligence, both plaintiffs and defendants rely heavily on medical expert testimony to support their respective positions. Here, we present a c...

Kilka uwag o przestępstwie z art. 233 k.k. (składanie fałszywych zeznań) po nowelizacji z 11 marca 2016 r.

<p>Ustawą z dnia 11 marca 2016 r. zostały wprowadzone zmiany do art. 233 k.k. Dodano typ uprzywilejowany przestępstwa składania fałszywych zeznań, gdy sprawca czyni to z obawy przed grożącą mu odpowiedzialnością karną, oraz typ nieumyślnego sporządzenia fałszywej opinii przez biegłego, eksperta lub tłumacza. Podniesiono również karę za typ podstawowy. Artykuł przedstawia stanowisko krytyczne wobec tych zmian. Prezentuje również uwagi o charakterze prawnoporównawczym.</p>

Testing Multiple Forecasters

We consider a cross-calibration test of predictions by multiple potential experts in a stochastic environment. This test checks whether each expert is calibrated conditional on the predictions made by other experts. We show that this test is good in the sense that a true expert—one informed of the true distribution of the process—is guaranteed to pass the test no matter what the other potential experts do, and false experts will fail the test on all but a small (category I) set of true distributions. Furthermore, even when there is no true expert present, a test similar to cross-calibration cannot be simultaneously manipulated by multiple false experts, but at the cost of failing some true experts.

Manipulability of Future-Independent Tests

The difficulties in properly anticipating key economic variables may encourage decision makers to rely on experts' forecasts. Professional forecasters, however, may not be reliable and so their forecasts must be empirically tested. This may induce experts to forecast strategically in order to pass the test. A test can be ignorantly passed if a false expert, with no knowledge of the data generating process, can pass the test. Many tests that are unlikely to reject correct forecasts can be ignorantly passed. Tests that cannot be ignorantly passed do exist, but these tests must make use of predictions contingent on data not yet observed at the time the forecasts are rejected. Such tests cannot be run if forecasters report only the probability of the next period's events on the basis of the actually observed data. This result shows that it is difficult to dismiss false, but strategic, experts who know how theories are tested. This result also shows an important role that can be played by predictions contingent on data not yet observed.

Manipulability of Future-Independent Tests

The difficulties in properly anticipating key economic variables may encourage decision makers to rely on experts' forecasts. Professional forecasters, however, may not be reliable and so their forecasts must be empirically tested. This may induce experts to forecast strategically in order to pass the test. A test can be ignorantly passed if a false expert, with no knowledge of the data-generating process, can pass the test. Many tests that are unlikely to reject correct forecasts can be ignorantly passed. Tests that cannot be ignorantly passed do exist, but these tests must make use of predictions contingent on data not yet observed at the time the forecasts are rejected. Such tests cannot be run if forecasters report only the probability of the next period's events on the basis of the actually observed data. This result shows that it is difficult to dismiss false, but strategic, experts who know how theories are tested. This result also shows an important role that can be played by predictions contingent on data not yet observed.

Normalizing Moral Dilemmas: The Construction of True and False Experts in German Nuclear Technology

As the boundaries between science and technology became permeable in the course of the 20th century (Latour, 1987), the definitions of military and civil uses of technology also became an object of...

Testing Multiple Forecasters

We consider a cross-calibration test of predictions by multiple potential experts in a stochastic environment. This test checks whether each expert is calibrated conditional on the predictions made by other experts. We show that this test is good in the sense that a true expert - one informed of the true distribution of the process - is guaranteed to pass the test no matter what the other potential experts do, and false experts will fail the test on all but a small (category one) set of true distributions. Furthermore, even when there is no true expert present, a test similar to cross-calibration cannot be simultaneously manipulated by multiple false experts, but at the cost of failing some true experts. In contrast, tests that allow false experts to make precise predictions can be jointly manipulated.

Lies, damned lies, and medical experts: the abrogation of responsibility by specialty organizations and a call for action.

The festering problem of medical expert witnesses proffering false testimony in court remains. A review of the many proposed reforms to resolve this chronic and outrageous practice has indicated little progress despite a resolution by the American Medical Association enunciating that medical expert witness testimony is effectively the practice of medicine. A questionnaire was sent to 36 specialty organizations to determine whether they had established guidelines, position statements, policies, or bylaws that govern the disciplinary management of their members who testify falsely. Responses were obtained from all 36 specialty organizations and showed that over 80% had no definitive disciplinary policies to deal with this egregious practice. This finding is all the more surprising given repeated judicial and other exhortations to professional organizations to "police themselves." To address the abrogation of responsibility by specialty organizations, new stringent disciplinary steps are proposed to exorcise the despicable practice of false expert witness testimony from the practice of medicine.