Ключові слова
вогнепальна зброя
неідентифікаційні ба лістичні дослідження
досудове розслідування
експерт
помилка
Як цитувати
Анотація
У статті виокремлено типові помилки експерта при проведенні неіден тифікаційних (діагностичних та ситуаційних) балістичних досліджень у кри мінальному провадженні, здійснено їх поділ на процесуальні, операційні (діяль нісні) та гносеологічні. Проведено аналіз процесуального порядку підготовки, призначення та проведення судово-балістичних експертиз, наведено прик лади з судової та експертної практики. Запропоновано шляхи недопущення та подолання помилок при проведенні неідентифікаційних балістичних дос ліджень.
Посилання
Areshonkov, V. V. (2016). Problems in conducting forensic examinations, types, causes and ways of prevention. Criminalistics and Forensics. Issue 61. P. 99-107 (in Ukrainian).
Kuchynska, O. P., Pylypchuk, O. P. Study of the opinion of an expert in criminal proceedings in the court of first instance. Criminalistics and Forensics. Issue 65. P. 19-25 (in Ukrainian).
Klymchuk, M. P., Marko, S. I. (2011). Informational value of expert opinion as a source of evidence in a criminal case. Legal Informatics. No. 3-4(31). P. 81-88 (in Ukrainian).
Kushakova, N. O., Kholodova, O. Yu.(2019).Peculiarities of evaluating the opinion of a forensic expert as one of the types of evidence in criminal, civil, administrative and economic proceedings. Topical issues of forensic science and criminalistics: collection of proceedings of international scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 150thanniversary of the birth of Hon. prof. M. S. Bocarius (Kharkiv, April 18–19). Kharkiv. P. 24-26 (in Ukrainian).
Melnyk, S. V., Hretskykh, O. V. (2021). The role of modern forensic ballistic expertise in the investigation of criminal proceedings. Legal scientific electronic journal.No. 5. P. 269-272 (in Ukrainian).
Abramova, V. M. (2005). Expert errors: essence, genesis, ways of overcoming: extended abstract of Candidate of Juridical Sciences: 12.00.09 «Criminal process and forensics; forensic examination». 20 p. (in Ukrainian).
Honcharenko, V. H. (2009).Criteria for the probability of an expert’s conclusion: epistemological, psychological and procedural aspects. Journal of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine. No. 3. Retrieved from: http://www.nbuv.gov.ua/e-journals/Chaau/2009-2/09gvgppa.pdf (in Ukrainian).
Giverts, P. V. (2021). Forensic research of atypical firearms (based on the materials of Israeli expert practice): Doctor of Philosophy Thesis: 12.00.09. Kharkiv. Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University. 268 p. (in Ukrainian).
Bondar, V. S. (2017). Information and analytical support for the study of the content of microparticles inherent in shot products. Bulletin of E. Didorenko Luhansk State University of Internal Affairs. No. 4 (80). P. 197-209 (in Ukrainian).
Hamov, D. Yu. (2012). The methodology for establishing the belonging of an object to a firearm and its suitability for firing (shooting). State Scientific Research Forensic Center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Kyiv. 34 p. (in Ukrainian).
Kofanov, A. V. (2015). Features of expert errors and some ways to prevent them during forensic ballistic examinations. Criminalistics and Forensics. Issue 60. P. 275-286 (in Ukrainian).
Rossinskaia, E. R. (2014). Forensic examination: typical mistakes. Moscow. 544 p. (in russian).
Svoboda, Ye. Yu. (2012). Reasons for the occurrence and the possibility of preventing expert errors in the activities of a handwriting expert. Journal of the Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine. No. 17 (4). P. 1-5 (in Ukrainian).
Shcherbakovskyi, M. H.(2015). Carrying out and using forensic examinations in criminal proceedings: a monograph. Kharkiv. 560 p. (in Ukrainian).
Yaroslav, Yu. Yu. (2019). Evaluation of the expert opinion with the help of special knowledge. Forensic psychological examin-ation. The use of the polygraph and special knowledge in legal practice:Electronic journal. Kyiv. No. 3 (19)(in Ukrainian).