Problematical aspects of using forensic expert conclusion on results of the forensic examination of electric shock accidents
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.2.2021.09Keywords:
forensic engineering examination, forensic electrical examination, life safety examination, electric shock accidents, examination as a source of evidenceAbstract
The article is devoted to topical and at the same time debatable topic of using forensic expert conclusion based on forensic examination results of electric shock accidents.
Evaluation and verification of forensic expert conclusion, as one of the sources of evidence obtained on the basis of scientific knowledge is a prerequisite for impartiality, objectivity and comprehensiveness of the investigation in criminal proceedings and court proceedings. Conclusion assessment and verification consists of the solution of two general groups of issues: 1) compliance with procedural rules and requirements while appointment, forensic examination and conclusion submission: procedural assessment; 2) correctness, scientific validity and reliability of research and the conclusion is a meaningful assessment.
Difficulty of correctly assessing and verifying reliability and scientific validity of forensic expert conclusion by investigative bodies or the court is due to the fact that conclusion is an expert’s deduction made on the basis of specific expertise in a particular field of science and technology. Certainly, investigator or the court does not have such knowledge. Sometimes they cannot objectively assess and verify the conclusion content for correct choice of methodology, methods used and methods of problem solving. It is emphasized that solution of such issue by investigation or the court is especially difficult in default of proven methods, or when applying new types of examinations.
The article presents some aspects of verification of the facts established in the conclusion, their consistency with other circumstances and evidence in the case. Emphasis is placed on the fact that it is often difficult to verify the facts established in while investigation of electric shock accidents, consistency of these facts with other evidence in the case, if forensic examination establishes such facts, or when examination establishes certain crime elements.
The ways of solving some complex aspects of the substantive assessment of forensic expert conclusion by investigation or the court are identified; it is proposed to make certain changes in procedural legislation regarding the independent review of forensic expert conclusion.
References
Arotsker, L. E. (1966). Sushchnost kriminalisticheskoi ehkspertizy [The essence of forensic examination]. Kriminalisticheskaia ehkspertiza. Vyp. 1 [in Russian].
Belkin, A. R. (1999). Teoriia dokazyvaniia [The theory of proof] : nauch.-metod. posob. Moskva [in Russian].
Golovchenko, L. N. (1993). Nekotorye voprosy otsenki zakliucheniia kriminalisticheskoi ehkspertizy sledovatelem i sudom [Certain issues of the assessment of forensic examination conclusion by investigator and the court]. Aktualnye problemy sudebnoi ehkspertizy i kriminalistiki. Kiev [in Russian].
Hrosheva, O. Yu. (2019). Do pytannia pro otsinku sudom kompleksnykh sudovykh biolohotrasolohichnykh ekspertyz [To the issue regarding the court’s assessment of multidisciplinary forensic biological and trace evidence analyses]. Legal Practice in EU Countries and Ukraine at the Modern Stage : International scientific and practical conference (Arad, Romania, January 25—26, 2019). Vasile Goldis Western University of Arad: Romania [in Ukrainian].
Hroshevyi, Yu. M., Stakhivskyi, S. M. (2006). Dokazy i dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu protsesi [Evidence and proof while criminal proceeding] : nauk.- prakt. posib. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Kaczor, R. (2010). Etapy i kryteria oceny opinii biegłego w postępowaniu karnym. Prokurator. № 1—2 (41— 42) [in Polish].
Khaziev, SH. N., Usov, A. I. (2010). O doklade Natsionalnoi akademii nauk SSHA «Ob ukreplenii sudebno-ehkspertnoi nauki v SSHA» i ego znachenii dlia mezhdunarodnogo sudebnoehkspertnogo soobshchestva [On the report of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA: On strengthening forensic science in the United States and its significance for the international forensic community]. Teoriia i praktika sudebnoi ehkspertizy. № 2 (18) [in Russian].
Kryminalnyi protses Ukrainy [The Criminal Process of Ukraine] (2000) : pidruch. dlia stud. yuryd. spets. vyshchykh zakl. osvity / Yu. M. Hroshevyi [ta in.] ; red. Yu. M. Hroshevyi, V. M. Khotenets // Nats. yuryd. akad. Ukrainy im. Yaroslava Mudroho, Akad. prav. nauk Ukrainy. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Meshkov, O. O., Shinkarenko, I. R. (2019). K voprosu o teoreticheskoi sushchnosti sudebnoi ehkspertizy sluchaev ehlektrotravmirovaniia [To the question concerning theoretical essence of forensic examination of electric shock accidents]. LEGEA ŞI VIAŢA. № 4/1 [in Russian].
Mieshkov, O. O. (2019). Obiekt, predmet i zavdannia sudovoi inzhenerno-tekhnichnoi ekspertyzy neshchasnykh vypadkiv, poviazanykh z elektrotravmuvanniam [Object, subject and tasks of judicial engineering and technical examination of accidents related to electrical injury]. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky. Vyp. 19. DOI: 10.32353/ khrife.1.2019.28 [in Ukrainian].
Orlov, Iu. K. (1995). Zakliuchenie ehksperta i ego otsenka (po ugolovnym delam) [Expert conclusion and its assessment (in criminal cases)] : ucheb. posob. Moskva [in Russian].
Panievin, O. S., Sukhova, H. Ye. (1998). Sudova ekspertyza v kryminalnykh spravakh [Forensic examination in criminal cases] // Komentar sudovoi praktyky v kryminalnykh ta administratyvnykh spravakh. Postanovy Plenumu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy (1995—1997) ; vidp. red. V. T. Maliarenko. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Puchko, D. V. (2020). K voprosu ob otsenke zakliucheniia ehksperta kak istochnika dokazatelstv [To the issue of assessing forensic expert conclusion as a source of evidence]. Armianskii zhurnal sudebnoi ehkspertizy i kriminalistiki. № 4 [in Russian].
Serhieieva, D. B. (2014). Poniattia ta sutnist dostovirnosti dokazu yak yoho vlastyvosti [The concept and essence of credibility of evidence as its feature]. Yuryst Ukrainy. № 1 (26) [in Ukrainian].
Shcherbakovskyi, M. H. (2015). Provedennia ta vykorystannia sudovykh ekspertyz u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Performing and using forensic examinations while criminal proceeding] : monohrafiia. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Simakova-Yefremian, E. B., Balynian, T. Ye., Derecha, L. M. (2010). Pro kryterii otsiniuvannia metodyk provedennia sudovykh ekspertyz v Ukraini [On the criteria for evaluating methods of conducting forensic examinations in Ukraine]. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky. Vyp. 10 [in Ukrainian].
Smirnova, S. A., Usov, A. I. (2017). Povyshenie nauchnoi obosnovannosti metodicheskogo obespecheniia sudebnoi ehkspertizy — odin iz vazhnykh mezhdunarodnykh trendov [Enhancing scientific validity of the methodological support of forensic science is one of important international trends]. Teoriia i praktika sudebnoi ehkspertizy. № 12 (2) [in Russian].
Vladimirov, L. E. (2000). Uchenie ob ugolovnykh dokazatelstvakh [The doctrine of criminal evidence]. Tula [in Russian].
