PROBLEMS IN THE EXERCISE OF THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES IN ASSESSING AN EXPERT OPINION IN A CRIMINAL CASE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33184/pravgos-2020.4.29Keywords:
FORENSIC EXAMINATION, EXPERT OPINION, JUDGE’S INNER CONVICTION, PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT, INDEPENDENCE OF JUDGES, PROVINGAbstract
The article analyzes some procedural and non-procedural factors that prevent the judge from assessing the expert's opinion in a criminal case freely. The article states that, in the existing law enforcement realities, the expert's opinion acquires the status of an absolute evidence having a pre-determined value. This is due to the de facto lack of competition between the parties in the procedures for appointing and producing an examination, as well as to the difficulty of assessing this type of evidence by a judge in the absence of special knowledge for that.
Purpose: to develop theoretical provisions justifying the need to improve the procedures for the appointment and production of expert opinions, as well as the assessment of expert opinions by the court, in order to ensure judicial independence.
The paper uses the methods of system analysis, synthesis, sociological polling and generalization. The author concludes that ensuring the freedom of judge’ inner conviction when assessing an expert's opinion directly depends on expanding the possibilities of using an alternative opinion of another person with a specialized knowledge in the same area - the expert's opinion and testimony.
In this regard, it is proposed that the law should make it mandatory to grant requests by parties for expert opinions to be admitted and examined in court, and that the results of such research should be reflected in the text of the court decision on the case.
References
Владимиров Л.Е. Учения об уголовных доказательствах. СПб.: Законоведение, 1910. 331 с.
Тарасов А.А. Эксперт и специалист в уголовном процессе России. М.: Проспект, 2017. 128 с.
Иванова Е.В. Некоторые вопросы дифференциации ошибочных и заведомо ложных заключений экспертов по делам о наркопреступлениях // Наркоконтроль. 2014. № 1. С. 22-25.
Мишин А.В., Мазуренко П.Н. Проблемы разграничения экспертной ошибки от заведомо ложного заключения эксперта // Вестник экономики, права и социологии. 2018. № 1. С. 104-106.
Тарасов А.А., Шарипова А.Р. Уголовно-процессуальный аспект дифференциации уголовной ответственности эксперта и специалиста за дачу заведомо ложных показаний и заключений // Legal Concept. 2017. № 3. С. 21-26.
Аверьянова Т.В. Судебная экспертиза: курс общей теории. М.: Норма, 2006. 479 с.
Белкин А.Р. Теория доказательств в уголовном судопроизводстве. М.: Норма, 2005. 528 с.
Хамова И.Е. Оценка допустимости заключения эксперта в уголовном процессе: дис. … канд. юрид. наук. Краснодар, 2011. 233 с.
Шейфер С.А. Доказательства и доказывания по уголовным делам: проблемы теории и правового регулирования. М.: Норма, 2008. 240 с.
Кудрявцева А.В., Морозова Ю.А. Процессуальный статус эксперта и специалиста: общее и особенное // Дифференциация уголовного судопроизводства как гарантия обеспечения прав участников уголовного судопроизводства: сб. науч. ст. Челябинск: Цицеро, 2015. С. 30-49.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Irek Gizatullin

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format; remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, unless appropriate credit is given, a link to the license is provided, and all made changes are indicated.




