The standard of forensic report veracity in criminal proceedings


Keywords: forensic report, veracity, admissibility, relevance, validity, veracitystandard

Abstract

Procedural (relevance and admissibility) and epistemological (due quality of objects, accuracy of source data, approved research methodology was applied) conditions and criteria (epistemological: scientific, methodological and logical substantiation of expert conclusions, procedural: compliance with other case files) that together determine veracity of the expert conclusion are outlined.

The Article Purpose is to analyze views of scientists concerning veracity of evidence in general and the expert conclusion in particular; clarify circumstances preceding the expert conclusion and conditioning its accuracy; emphasize epistemological and procedural criteria for this characteristic and compare with the procedure for determining veracity of forensic examination in the countries of the Anglo-Saxon Legal Family and develop a standard based on which veracity of the forensic report can be established by results of performed research.

The scientific and methodological substantiation presupposes general and specific substantiation of research results of submitted objects. The logical substantiation is argumentation of the expert’s interim and final conclusions. The criterion for procedural veracity of the forensic report is in its consistency, compliance with other pieces of evidence. It is advisable to use the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” to determine conformity of the forensic report with objective reality.

The standard of forensic report veracity implies that conditions of relevance and admissibility of the forensic report are met, objects submitted for forensic examination are of appropriate quality, expert conclusions are based on general scientific and methodological provisions and results of a particular expert research stemming from them, logically reasoned, conformed with other pieces of evidence in a criminal proceeding and recognized as corresponding to actual circumstances of the offense beyond any reasonable doubt.

References

Antonov, K. V., Sachko, O. V., Tertyshnyk, V. M., Uvarov, V. H. (2015). Teoriia dokaziv [Proof Theory]: pidruchnyk. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Averianova, T. V. (2001). Sudebnaia ehkspertiza. Kurs obshchei teorii [Forensic examination. General theory course]. Moskva [in Russian].
Bandurka, O. M., Blazhivskyi, Ye. M., Burdol, Ye. P. ta in. (2013). Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy. Naukovo-praktychnyi komentar [The Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. Scientific and Practical Commentary]. U 2 t. T. 1 ; za zah. red. V. Ya. Tatsiia, V. P. Pshonky, A. V. Portnova. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Belkin, R. S. (1966). Sobiranie, issledovanie i otsenka dokazatelstv. Sushchnost i metody [Collecting, studying and evaluating evidence. Essence and methods]. Moskva [in Russian].
Belkin, R. S. (2001). Kriminalistika: problemy segodniashnego dnia. Zlobodnevnye voprosy rossiiskoi kriminalistiki [Criminalistics: problems of the present. Pressing issues of Russian criminalistics]. Moskva [in Russian].
Belkin, R. S., Vinberg, A. I., Dorokhov, V. Iа., Karneeva, L. M. i dr. (1973). Teoriia dokazatelstv v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse [The proof theory in the Soviet criminal procedure]; otv. red. N. V. Zhogin. Moskva [in Russian].
Bergman, P., Berman, S. J. (2009). The Criminal Law Handbook: Know Your Rights, Survive the System. 11th edition. Printed in the U. S. A.
Black's Law Dictionary (1968) ; By Black H. C. 4th edition. St. Paul, Minn ; West Рublishing Сo.
Bolshoi ehntsiklopedicheskii slovar [Big Encyclopedic Dictionary](2000) ; gl. red. A. N. Prokhorov. Moskva, Sankt-Peterburg [in Russian].
Brokgauz, F. A., Efron, I. A. (2002). Ehntsiklopedicheskii slovar: sovremennaia versiia [Encyclopedic Dictionary. Modern Version]. Moskva [in Russian]. Butyrin, A. Iu., Trifonova, Z. V. (2017). Obespechenie dostovernosti vyvodov v zakliuchenii ehksperta pri proizvodstve sudebnoi stroitelnotekhnicheskoi ehkspertizy [Ensuring veracity of the conclusions in the forensic report while conduct of forensic structural engineering analysis]. Teoriia i praktika sudebnoi ehkspertizy. T. 12. № 3. URL: https://moesnsk.ru/upload/me dialibrary/311/3117b926e4edcbbe7b8960293e73 4e36.pdf [in Russian].
Bychkova, S. F., Bychkova, E. S., Kalimova, A. S. (2005). Sudebnaia ehkspertologiia. Kurs lektsii [Forensic science. Course of lectures]. Almaty [in Russian].
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US. 579 (1993). URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/ federal/us/509/579.
Drozdov, O., Hryniuk, V., Kovalchuk, S., Korytko, L., Kret, G. (2021). The standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal proceedings of Ukraine in the context of the ECHR case-law. Amazonia Investiga. Vol. 10. Is. 46. DOI: 10.34069/ AI/2021.46.10.28.
Edwards, T. S., Jr., Edwards, J. R. (2020). The Daubert expert standard: a primer for Florida judges and lawyers. The Florida bar journal. Vol. 94. No. 2. URL: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/ the-daubert-expert-standard-a-primer-for-floridajudges-and-lawyers.
Ehisman, A. A. (1967). Zakliuchenie ehksperta. Struktura i nauchnoe obosnovanie [The forensic report. Structure and scientific substantiation]. Moskva [in Russian].
Ehntsiklopediia ehpistemologii i filosofii nauki [Encyclopedia of Epistemology and Philosophy of Science ](2009) ; pod red. I. T. Kasavina. Moskva [in Russian].
Faigman, D. L., Slobogin, C., Monahan, J. (2016). Gatekeeping Science: Using the Structure of Scientific Research to Distinguish Between Admissibility and Weight in Expert Testimony. Northwestern University Law Review. Vol. 110. No. 4. URL: https://scholarlycommons. l a w.n o r t hw e s t e r n . e d u / c g i / v i e w c o n t e n t . cgi?article=1244&context=nulr.
Filosofskii ehntsiklopedicheskii slovar [Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary](1983). Moskva [in Russian].
Frye v. United States. 293 Fed. 1013 (D. C. Cir. 1923). URL: https://casetext.com/case/frye-v-united-states-7.
General Electric Co. v Joiner, 522 U. S. 136 (1997). URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/ us/522/136.
Giannelli, P. C. (1980). The Admissibility of Novel Scientific Evidence: Frye v. United States, a HalfCentury later. Columbia Law Review. Vol. 80. No. 6. DOI: 10.2307/1122061.
Gunn, T. J. (2020). Limitations Clauses, Evidence, and the Burden of Proof in the European Court of Human Rights. Religion & Human Rights. Vol. 15. Is. 1—2. DOI: 10.1163/18710328-BJA10007.
House of Commons. Science and Technology Committee. Forensic Science on Trial. Seventh Report of Session 2004–05. Published on 29 March 2005. P. 77. URL: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ cm200405/cmselect/cmsctech/96/96i.pdf.
Iuridicheskie osnovaniia dostovernosti dokazatelstv [Legal grounds for evidence veracity](2011) / sost. N. A. Ternovskii ; pod red. V. A. Tomsinova. Moskva [in Russian].
Kliuiev, O. M., Simakova-Yefremian, E. B., Khosha, V. V. (2020). Sudova-ekspertna diialnist v Ukraini: zbirnyk normatyvno-pravovykh aktiv [Forensic activity in Ukraine: collection of regulatory legal acts]: chynne zakonodavstvo stanom na 1 veres. 2020 r. / uporiad.: O. M. Kliuiev, E. B. Simakova-Yefremian, V. V. Khosha. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Kliuiev, O. M., Uhrovetskyi, O. P., Simakova-Yefremian, E. B., Petrova, I. A. ta in. (2021). Sudovi ekspertyzy v administratyvnomu provadzhenni [Forensic examinations in administrative proceedings]: navch. posib. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Kliuiev, O., Simakova-Yefremian, E. (2021). Doktrynalni pidkhody do sudovoi ekspertyzy v Ukraini [Doctrinal approaches to forensic science in Ukraine]. Pravo Ukrainy. № 8 [in Ukrainian].
Klymenko, N. I. (2007). Sudova ekspertolohiia. Kurs lektsii [Forensic science. Course of lectures]. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Kratkaia filosofskaia ehntsiklopediia [Short Philosophical Encyclopedia](1994). Moskva [in Russian].
Kryminalnyi protses [Criminal procedure](2018) : pidruchnyk ; za zah. red. O. V. Kaplinoi, O. H. Shylo. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy. Naukovopraktychnyikomentar [The Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. Scientific and Practical Commentary] (2012) ; za zah. red. V. H. Honcharenko, V. T. Nora, M. Ye. Shumyla. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U. S. 137 (1999). URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/ us/526/137.
Lisichenko, V. K. (1982). Osobennosti proverki i otsenki zakliuchenii ehkspertizy na predvaritelnom sledstvii i v sude [Peculiarities of reviewing and evaluating forensic reports while preliminary investigation and court proceedings]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaia ehkspertiza. Vyp. 24 [in Russian].
Mikheenko, M. M. (1984). Dokazyvanie v sovetskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Proof in Soviet criminal proceedings]. Kiev [in Russian].
Nemira, S. V. (2016). Dostovernost zakliucheniia ehksperta v ugolovnom protsesse [Veracity of the forensic report in criminal proceedings]: dis. … kand. iurid. nauk. Krasnodar [in Russian].
Nemira, S. V. (2016). Dostovernost zakliucheniia ehksperta v ugolovnom protsesse : avtoref. dis. … kand. iurid. nauk. Krasnodar [in Russian].
Orlov, Iu. K. (2005). Sudebnaia ehkspertiza kak sredstvo dokazyvaniia v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Forensic examination as a means of proof in criminal proceedings]. Moskva [in Russian].
Pavlyshyn, A. A. (2020). Dostovirnist dokaziv [Proof veracity]/ Velyka ukrainska yurydychna entsyklopediia. U 20 t. T. 19. Kryminalnyi protses, sudoustrii, prokuratura ta advokatura. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Pedenchuk, A. K. (1995). Zakliuchenye sudebnoho эksperta: lohyka, ystynnost, dostovernost [The forensic report: logic, truth, veracity]: avtoref. dys. … d-ra yuryd. nauk. Moskva [in Ukrainian]. Reznik, G. M. (1977). Vnutrennee ubezhdenie pri otsenke dokazatelstv [Internal conviction in the evaluation of evidence]. Moskva [in Russian].
Ripenko, A. I., Tishchenko, V. V., Samoilenko, O. A., Simakova-Yefremian, E. B., Petrova, I. A. ta in. (2021). Sudovi ekspertyzy u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Forensic examinations in criminal proceedings]: posibnyk. Odesa [in Ukrainian].
Rossinskaia, E. R. (2020). Sudebnaia ehkspertiza v grazhdanskom, arbitrazhnom, administrativnom i ugolovnom protsesse [Forensic examination in civil, arbitration, administrative and criminal proceedings]: monografiia. Moskva [in Russian].
Serhieieva, D. B. (2014). Poniattia ta sutnist dostovirnosti dokazu yak yoho vlastyvosti [The concept and essence of evidence veracity as its peculiarity]. Yuryst Ukrainy. № 1. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/ uy_2014_1_14 [in Ukrainian].
Schafer, В., Aitken, C. G. G., Mavridis, D. Daubert in the UK — Second order evidence between courts and commissions. URL: http://www.maths.ed.ac. uk/~cgga/Cutting%20the%20Daubert%20knot.doc.
Shcherbakovskii, M. G. (2013). Usloviia formirovaniia dostovernogo zakliucheniia ehksperta [Conditions for the formation of a veracious forensic report]. Teorіia ta praktika sudovoі ekspertizi і krimіnalіstiki. Vip. 13 [in Russian].
Shcherbakovskyi, M. H. (2015). Provedennia ta vykorystannia sudovykh ekspertyz u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Performing and using forensic examinations in criminal proceedings]: monohrafiia. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Simakova-Yefremian, E. B. (2021). Problemy vykorystannia vysnovku eksperta u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Problems of using forensic report in criminal proceedings]. Problemy teorii ta praktyky kryminalnoho provadzhennia : mat-ly kruhl. stolu (Kharkiv, 17.06.2021). Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Simakova-Yefremian, E., Sylenok, K. (2021). Current Directions of Development of International Cooperation of Forensic Science Institutions of Ukraine in The Fields Historical Forensics, Forensic Archaelogy and Aerospace Forensics. Integrated computer technologies in mechanical engineering — synergetic engineering. ICTM’2021 : proceedings, 28—29 Oct. 2021. Kharkov, Ukraine. Cham : Springer, 2021.
Slovar sovremennogo russkogo literaturnogo iazyka [Dictionary of modern Russian literary language] (1991). V 20 t. ; gl. red. K. S. Gorbachevich. T. 4. Moskva [in Russian].
Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy [The Ukrainian Language Dictionary] (1970—1980). V 11 t. ; za red. I. K. Bilodida. Kyiv. T. 2. 1971 [in Ukrainian].
Stern, H. S., Cuellar, M., Kaye, D. Н. (2019). Reliability and Validity of Forensic Science Evidence. Significance. Vol. 16. No. 2. URL: https://papers. ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3387399.
Strogovich, M. S. (1955). Materialnaia istina i sudebnye dokazatelstva v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse [Material truth and forensic evidence in the Soviet criminal procedure]. Moskva [in Russian].
Sudebnye ehkspertizy: vozmozhnosti, podgotovka materialov, naznachenie, otsenka [Forensic examinations: possibilities, preparation of materials, appointment, evaluation ] (1981). Kiev [in Russian].
Teoriia dokazatelstv v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse [The concept of evidence in the Soviet criminal process](1973) ; otv. red. N. V. Zhogin. Moskva [in Russian].
The Criminal Procedure Rules 2020 (2020). UK Statutory Instruments. № 759 (L. 19). URL: https://www. legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2020/759/contents/made.
Vapniarchuk, V. V. (2018). Teoretychni osnovy kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia [Theoretical foundations of criminal procedural proof]: dys. … d-ra yuryd. nauk. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Vladimirov, L. E. (2000). Uchenie ob ugolovnykh dokazatelstvakh [The doctrine of criminal evidence]. Tula. S. 266.
Ward, T. (2020). Explaining and trusting expert evidence: What is a ‘sufficiently reliable scientific basis’? The International Journal of Evidence & Proof. Vol. 24. № 3. DOI: 10.1177/1365712720927622.

Abstract views: 28
PDF Downloads: 16 PDF Downloads: 8
Published
2021-12-30
How to Cite
Shcherbakovskyi, M. (2021). The standard of forensic report veracity in criminal proceedings. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 25(3), 21-39. https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.3.2021.03