Evaluating Handwriting Analysis Findings in Judicial Practice: Criteria, Sample-Related Challenges and Ways of Improvement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.3.2025.11Keywords:
forensic examination; handwriting analysis; forensic expert; expert findings; evaluation of evidence; judicial practice; probative value; scientific criteria.Abstract
The primary concerns of this paper are to substantiate a set of criteria for evaluating handwriting analysis expert findings so that they can be utilized in court, and to analyse existing approaches to understanding the probative value of expert findings in the context of judicial practice. To fulfil this goal, a combination of general scientific and special methods was used. The authors analyse current legislation governing the procedure for appointing, conducting and evaluating forensic examinations (specifically the procedural codes of Ukraine and special regulatory acts governing forensic activities). Particular attention is drawn to judicial practice of applying handwriting analysis findings and to principal issues involving their evaluation: disputed expert research results, insufficiently reasoned conclusions and the formal approach of the courts to their perception. Emphasis is placed on the court’s discretionary assessment of evidence and the boundaries of its application in cases involving the use of specific expertise. The article proposes systematic criteria (notably, compliance of applicable methodologies with current scientific requirements, thoroughness in the description of research objects, logical sequence in presenting the expert’s reasoning, clarity in formulating findings, existence of alternative hypotheses, as well as consistency of findings with other evidence in a case), which will prove valuable for judges, lawyers, prosecutors and other participants in the process when assessing the quality of findings based on handwriting analyses. Lawyers who need to critically analyse expert findings when proving a case may find the findings outlined in this paper useful, as they could serve as a methodological guideline. The paper emphasises the need for judges to undergo advanced training in assessing specific expertise and developing uniform approaches to the use of expert findings as evidence in judicial practice.
References
Bazhaniuk, V. V. (2021). Otsinka vysnovku eksperta u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Evaluation of the experts opinion in criminal proceedings]. Naukovyi visnyk Mizhnarodnoho humanitarnoho universytetu. Ser.: Yurysprudentsiia. № 54. T. 2. DOI: 10.32841/2307-1745.2021.54.2.24 [in Ukrainian].
Cherniak, A. M. (2022). Vykorystannia spetsialnykh znan pry doslidzhenni tekstiv iz zaklykamy do pidryvu konstytutsiinoho ladu, porushennia terytorialnoi tsilisnosti i nedotorkanosti Ukrainy [Core Competency in Research of Texts Calling for Undermining the Constitutional Order, Territorial Integrity and Sovereignty of Ukraine]. Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva. № 3 — 4. DOI: 10.17721/2413-5372.2022.3-4/101-111 [in Ukrainian].
Halahan, V. I., Kozak, O. V. (2012). Protsesualnyi poriadok i taktyka oderzhannia zrazkiv dlia ekspertnoho doslidzhennia u kryminalnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy [Procedural framework and tactics in obtaining samples for expert research in Ukrainian criminal proceedings] : monohrafiia. Donetsk [in Ukrainian].
Homeniuk, I. M., Honhalo, S. Y. (2016). Zrazky dlia sudovoi pocherkoznavchoi ekspertyz y: problemni pytannia oderzhannia ta mozhlyvi shliakhy yikh vyrishennia [Samples for forensic handwriting analysis: challenges in obtaining samples and possible ways to address them]. Kryminalistychnyi visnyk. № 1 (25). URL: https://surl.li/jzjewr [in Ukrainian].
Husieva, V. O. (2024). Pryznachennia pocherkoznavchoi ekspertyzy: typovi pomylky storony obvynuvachennia [Appointing handwriting examination: typical mistakes made by the prosecution]. Sudovo-ekspertna diialnist: zberezhennia naukovoho ta kadrovoho potentsialu v umovakh voiennoho stanu : mat-ly IV Vseukr. forumu sud. ekspert. (Lviv, 07.06.2024). Odesa. URL: https:// ndekc.lviv.ua/pdf/law.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Klymchuk, M. P., Marko, S. I. (2011). Informatsiina tsinnist vysnovku eksperta yak dzherela dokaziv u kryminalnii spravi [Informational value of expert findings as a source of evidence in a criminal case]. Pravova informatyka. № 3 — 4 (31). URL: http://nbuv.gov. ua/UJRN/Pinform_2011_3-4_13 [in Ukrainian].
Klymenko, N. I. (2007). Sudova ekspertolohiia: kurs lektsii [Forensic expertology: lecture course] : navch. posib. dlia stud. yuryd. spets. vnz. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Klymenko, N. I. (2011). Vysnovok eksperta yak dzherelo dokazu v sudochynstvi [Expert findings as a source of evidence in court proceedings]. Ekspertne zabezpechennia rozsliduvannia okremykh vydiv zlochyniv : matly nauk.-prakt. konf. (Kyiv, 31.03.2011). Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Korzh, V. (2022). Otsinka vysnovku eksperta: protsesualni pidstavy, kryminalistychni rekomendatsii [Evaluation of expert findings: procedural grounds, forensic recommendations]. Suchasni tendentsii rozvytku kryminalistyky ta kryminalnoho protsesu v umovakh voiennoho stanu : tezy dop. Mizhnar. nauk.prakt. konf. (Kharkiv, 25.11.2022). Kharkiv. URL: https://files.znu.edu.ua/files/Bibliobooks/Inshi71/0052090.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Kozak, O. V. (2014). Protsesualnyi poriadok otrymannia zrazkiv dlia ekspertyzy za KPK Ukrainy [Procedural framework for obtaining samples for forensic examination under the CPC of Ukraine]. Dni nauky Natsionalnoho universytetu «Kyievo-Mohylianska akademiia» na fakulteti pravnychykh nauk, 2014 : tezy nauk. dop. ta povidom. (na kruhl. stol. 23 ta 27 sichnia 2014 r.). Kyiv. URL: https://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle/123456789/32549 [in Ukrainian].
Kravchuk, T. O. (2016). Otsinka vysnovku eksperta ta yoho dokazove znachennia v administratyvnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy [The Estimation of the experts statement and its evidentiary value in administrative legal proceedings of Ukraine]. Innovative solutions in modern science. № 6 (6). URL: http://naukajournal.org/index.php/ISMSD/ article/viewFile/923/1063 [in Ukrainian].
Melenevska, Z. S., Svoboda, Ye. Yu., Antoniuk, P. Ye. (2016). Prychyny ekspertnykh pomylok pid chas vyrishennia identyfikatsiinykh zavdan u mezhakh sudovo-pocherkoznavchykh doslidzhen [Reasons for expert errors when solving identification tasks in forensic handwriting analyses]. Kryminalistychnyi visnyk. № 1 (25). URL: https://surl.li/jzjewr [in Ukrainian].
Ohliad sudovoi praktyky Kasatsiinoho tsyvilnoho sudu u skladi Verkhovnoho Sudu shchodo okremykh pytan zastosuvannia polozhen Tsyvilnoho protsesualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy. Rishennia, vneseni do YeDRSR, iz sichnia 2024 roku po berezen 2025 roku [Case law review of the Civil Cassation Court within the Supreme Court regarding certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine. Decisions entered into the Unified State Register of Court Decisions between January 2024 and March 2025] (2025). Kyiv / Sudova vlada Ukrainy : vebsait. URL: https:// surl.li/koczoq [in Ukrainian].
Published Standards (2021) / SWGDOC : web. 28 May. URL: https://www.swgdoc.org/index.php/standards/published-standards.
Saltevskyi, M. V. (2005). Kryminalistyka (u suchasnomu vykladi) [Criminalistics (in its modern form)] : pidruchnyk. Kyiv. URL: https://surli. cc/xyracd [in Ukrainian].
Shcherbakovskyi, M. (2021). The standard of forensic report veracity in criminal proceedings. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics. Is. 3 (25). DOI: 10.32353/ khrife.3.2021.03.
Shepitko, V. Yu. (2018). Otsinka vysnovku eksperta [Evaluation of expert findings] / Velyka ukrainska yurydychna entsyklopediia. U 20 t. T. 20 : Kryminalistyka, sudova ekspertyza, yurydychna psykholohiia ; redkol.: V. Yu. Shepitko (holova) ta in. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Shkabaro, V. M., Bila, A. V., Voronin, V. V. (2022). Pravovi aspekty provedennia pocherkoznavchoho doslidzhennia [Legal Aspects of Conducting of Handwriting Research]. Visnyk Universytetu imeni Alfreda Nobelia. Seriia «Pravo». № 1 (4). DOI: 10.32342/27096408-2022-1-4-5 [in Ukrainian].
Tkachenko, Ye. A. (2018). Retsenzuvannia vysnovkiv sudovykh ekspertiv yak neformalni praktyky — yikh protsesualnyi status ta otsinka v kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Reviewing the opinions of forensic experts as informal practices – their procedural status and evaluation in criminal proceedings]. Chasopys Kyivskoho universytetu prava. № 4. URL: https://surl.li/ptdrzl [in Ukrainian].
Vasylieva-Shalamova, Zh. V. (2007). Protsesualnyi poriadok pryznachennia sudovoi ekspertyzy v tsyvilnomu protsesi [Procedural rules governing the appointment of a forensic examination in civil proceedings]. Sudoustrii i sudochynstvo v Ukraini. № 4 [in Ukrainian].
Vasylieva-Shalamova, Zh. V. (2009). Sudova ekspertyza v tsyvilnomu protsesi [Court Expertise in Civil Proceedings] : avtoref. dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Yaroslav, Yu. Yu. (2019). Otsinka vysnovku eksperta za dopomohoiu spetsialnykh znan [Evaluating expert findings through specific expertise]. Sudovo-psykholohichna ekspertyza. Zastosuvannia polihrafa i spetsialnykh znan v yurydychnii praktytsi. № 3 (19). URL: https://surl.li/okshkh [in Ukrainian].
Yunatskyi, O. V. (2019). Otsinka vysnovku eksperta yak dokazu u sudi [Evaluating expert findings as evidence in court]. Teoriia i praktyka sudovo-ekspertnoi diialnosti : mat-ly VIII Mizhvidom. nauk.-prakt. konf. (Kyiv, 27.11.2019). Kyiv. URL: https://surli.cc/fkjihp [in Ukrainian].
Savina, O., Zdor, V., Us, D. (2025). Evaluating Handwriting Analysis Findings in Judicial Practice: Criteria, Sample-Related Challenges and Ways of Improvement. Theo ry and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics. Issue 3 (40). Pp. 153 — 173. DOI: 10.32353/khrife.3.2025.11.
