Signs of Errors Made by Forensic Experts: How They Differ From Errors in Other Areas of Human Activity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.2.2026.06Keywords:
activity; error; cause; forensic expert; sign; truth; opinion; expert research; object; forensic examination.Abstract
The authors pinpoint that expert errors can lead to erroneous decisions in criminal proceedings (due to their tendency to become investigative, comprehensive investigative-prosecutorial, or judicial errors). Unfortunately, such errors do become more complex, evolve, and adversely affect the process of ascertaining objective truth. This situation has highlighted the pressing need to identify specific signs of expert errors that are distinct from errors in other areas of human activity, and the urgent necessity for defining these signs. The Article Purpose is to conduct a theory- based analysis of factors underlying the emergence of expert errors, to identify signs characterizing errors made by forensic experts during forensic examinations and distinguishing them from errors made in other areas of human activity, and to develop a sound definition for the concept of “expert error” that could be used in the system of forensic expert activity. Methodological framework of the research comprises general scientific and specialised methods of scientific inquiry. Essentially, error is a distorted reflection of reality in the human mind. It has been observed that errors are associated with erroneous cognitive processing, inadequate reasoning, misinterpretation and imprecise actions, and with violation of certain rules. It has been pointed out that error is always unintentional, which distinguishes it from falsehood (lying/misrepresentation) and disinformation (false information disseminated as true in order to mislead). While identifying differences between human error and expert error, we provide the analysis on error interpretation across various scientific disciplines. It has been emphasized that errors in fact-finding may manifest in the form of: a statement of fact in the absence of sufficient grounds for DOIng so; a denial of a fact where there are grounds for recognising its occurrence. Findings confirm that causes of errors can be either objective (measurement instrument errors, unrecorded environmental influences on objects under study, etc.) or subjective (overconfidence, negligence of a forensic expert, his/her over-reliance on erroneous expert opinions, etc.). The concept of “error” has been addressed. Key signs of errors, particularly expert errors, have been identified.
References
Abramova, V. M. (2002). Poniattia pomylky sudovoho eksperta [Forensic expert error: concept]. Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk. № 3 (30) [in Ukrainian].
Abramova, V. M. (2004). Ekspertni pomylky: sutnist, henezys, shliakhy podolannia [Expert errors: nature, genesis, and ways to recover from them] : dys. … kand. yuryd. nauk. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Abramova, V. M., Svoboda, Ye. Yu. (2014). Pomylky v sudovo-ekspertnii diialnosti: sutnist, umovy vynyknennia ta vydy [Errors in forensic expert activity: nature, causes, and types]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaya ekspertiza. Vyp. 59. URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/krise_2014_59_11 [in Ukrainian].
Aliev, I. A. i dr. (1992). Konceptualnye osnovy obshej teorii sudebnoj ekspertizy [Conceptual framework of forensic science general theory]. Baku [in Russian].
Antolohiia liberalizmu: polityko-pravnychi vchennia ta verkhovenstvo prava [Anthology of liberalism: political and legal dosctrines and the rule of law] (2008) / uporiadnyky: S. Holovatyi, M. Koziubra, O. Syroid. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Bakhin, V. P., Sadchenko, O. O., Kuzmіchov, V. S. (1993). Potreby slidchoi praktyky [Investigative practice demands] : navch. posib. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Bandurka, O. M., Tiahlo, O. V. (2017). Yurydychna lohika [Legal logic] : pidruchnyk. 2-he vyd., pererob. i dopov. Kharkiv. URI: https://dspace.krok.edu.ua/handle/krok/8130 [in Ukrainian].
Baulin, O. V. (2025). Poniattia, vydy, prychyny y naslidky pomylok eksperta v kryminalnomu sudochynstvi Ukrainy [Concepts, Types, Causes and Consequences of Expert Errors in Criminal Proceedings of Ukraine]. Yevropeiskyi pravnychyi chasopys. Vyp. 6, 7. DOI: 10.36919/3041-1149(Print).6-7.2025.188-195 [in Ukrainian].
Berger, V. E., Kovalenko, Yu. N. (1981). Osnovnye stadii proizvodstva kompleksnyh kriminalisticheskih i sudebno-medicinskih ekspertiz [Main stages in the conduct of multidisciplinary criminalistics and forensic medical examinations]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaya ekspertiza. Vyp. 22 [in Russian].
Bernaz, B. D. (1993). K voprosu o logicheskih oshibkah pri reshenii kriminalisticheskih zadach [On logical errors in tackling forensic tasks]. Aktualnye problemy ugolovnogo processa i kriminalistiki na sovremennom etape : sb. nauch. tr. Odessa [in Russian].
Dementiev, М. (2022). Internal Conviction and Forms of Expert Conclusions. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics. Is. 4 (29). DOI: 10.32353/khrife.4.2022.08.
Dombrovskij, R. G. (1990). Poznanie i dokazyvanie v rassledovanii prestuplenij [Inquiry and proving in criminal investigations] : avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. Kiev [in Russian].
Dzhavadov, F. M. (2000). Konceptualnye osnovy razvitiya sudebnoj ekspertizy v sovremennyh usloviyah [Conceptual principles for forensic science development in the current context] : dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. Kiev [in Russian].
Goncharenko, V. I. (2002). Edinstvo i otlichie kriminalistiki i kriminalisticheskoj ekspertizy [Similarities and differences in criminalistics and criminalistics expert examination]. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky. Vyp. 2 [in Russian].
Kalienichenko, L. I. (2014). Pomylka yak katehoriia pravoznavstva [Error as a category of law]. Visnyk Kharkivskoho natsionalnoho universytetu imeni V. N. Karazina. Seriia «Pravo». 2014. Vyp. 17. URL: https://periodicals.karazin.ua/law/article/view/1180/956 [in Ukrainian].
Klimenko, N. I. (1988). Ekspertnye oshibki i ih prichiny [Expert errors and their causes]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaya ekspertiza. Vyp. 37 [in Russian].
Klimenko, N. I., Dombrovskij, R. G. (1995). Kriminalisticheskie znaniya: priroda i soderzhanie [Forensic knowledge: nature and scope]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaya ekspertiza. Vyp. 47 [in Russian].
Lisichenko, V. K. (1982). Osobennosti proverki i ocenki zaklyuchenij ekspertizy na predvaritelnom sledstvii i v sude [Specific features of reviewing and evaluating expert opinions during pre-trial investigation and trial]. Kriminalistika i sudebnaya ekspertiza. Vyp. 24 [in Russian].
Melnyk, Ya. H. (2019). Pomylky u systemi tradytsiinoi lohiky: filosofsko-dialektychnyi ta komunikatyvno-deviatolohichnyi aspekty [Flaws in the system of traditional logic: philosophical-dialectical and communicative-deviance aspects] / za red. dots. H. D. Yerushevycha. Ivano-Frankivsk. URL: https://kc.cnu.edu.ua/wp-content/uploads/ites/156/2020/09/%D0%9F%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%B-B%D0%BA%D0%B8.-doc-1.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Novyi tlumachnyi slovnyk ukrainskoi movy [New explanatory dictionary of the Ukrainian language] (1998). U 4 t. : dlia student. vyshch. ta sered. navch. zakl. T. 3 : Obe — Rob / ukladachi: V. Yaremenko, O. Slipushko. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Pervomaiskyi, V. B. (1998). Ekspertna posylka [Expert error] / Yurydychna entsyklopediia. U 6 t. T. 2 : D — Y // redkol.: Yu. S. Shemshuchenko (holova) ta in. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Pszczołowski, T. (1967). Zasady sprawnego działania: wstęp do prakseologii [Principles of effective performance: introduction to praxeology]. Warszawa [in Polish].
Sehai, M. Ya. (2003). Sudova ekspertolohiia — nauka pro sudovo-ekspertnu diialnist [Forensic expertology: the study of forensic expert activity]. Visnyk Akademii pravovykh nauk Ukrainy. № 2 (33) / 3 (34) [in Ukrainian].
Seniuta, I. Ya. (2018). Tsyvilno-pravove rehuliuvannia vidnosyn u sferi nadannia medychnoi dopomohy: pytannia teorii i praktyky [Civil legal handling of relations in the field of healthcare provision: theory and practice] : monohrafiia. Lviv. URL: https://library.megu.edu.ua:9443/jspui/handle/123456789/2915 [in Ukrainian].
Shapar, V. B. (2007). Suchasnyi tlumachnyi psykholohichnyi slovnyk [Modern explanatory psychology dictionary]. Kharkiv. URL: https://archive.org/details/psyxoloh2007/page/100/mode/2up [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.
Shcherbakovskyi, M. H. (2022). Slidchi ta ekspertni pomylky, shcho obumovliuiut nedopustymist ekspertnoho vysnovku [Investigative and expert errors rendering an expert opinion inadmissible]. Teoretychni ta prykladni problemy sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky : tezy dop. uchasn. IX Vseukr. nauk.-prakt. konf. (Kharkiv, 30.09.2022). Kharkiv. URL: https://library.pp-ss.pro/index.php/ndippsn_202220930/article/view/shcherbakovskyi/pdf [in Ukrainian].
Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy online [Online dictionary of the Ukrainian language]. T. 1—16 (A — Riakhtlyvyi). URL: https://sum20ua.com/?wordid=0&page=0 [in Ukrainian].
Svyrydenko, V. (2002). Dovedennia, dokaz [Proving, evidence] / Filosofskyi entsyklopedychnyi slovnyk / V. I. Shynkaruk (hol. redkol.) ta in.; L. V. Ozadovska, N. P. Polishchuk (nauk. red.). Kyiv. URL: https://archive.org/details/filosofskyi_entsyklop/page/496/mode/2up [in Ukrainian].
Tsalin, S. D. (2006). Lohichnyi slovnyk-dovidnyk [Logical dictionary-reference book]. 4-te vyd., vypr. i dopov. Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Vanchak, M. L. (2011). Poniattia zakonotvorchykh pomylok u kryminalnomu pravi [Concept of legislative errors in criminal law]. Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav. Seriia yurydychna. № 3 [in Ukrainian].
Yevhrafova, Ye. P. (2016). Praktyka vypravlennia zakonotvorchykh pomylok [Practice of rectifying legislative errors]. Chasopys tsyvilnoho i kryminalnoho sudochynstva. 2016. № 2 (29). URL: http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/Chcks_2016_2_8 [in Ukrainian].
Zavhorodnii, Yu. (2002). Niaia [Nyāya] / Filosofskyi entsyklopedychnyi slovnyk / V. I. Shynkaruk (hol. redkol.) ta in.; L. V. Ozadovska, N. P. Polishchuk (nauk. red.). Kyiv. URL: https://archive.org/details/filosofskyi_entsyklop/page/496/mode/2up [in Ukrainian].
