Keywords
forensic examination
evaluation of results
How to Cite
Abstract
The article summarizes and analyzes the causes of errors made during the stages of the appointment of a forensic examination and an expert opinion assessment. There are numerous examples of errors from the practical activities of the investigating authorities. The lack of sufficient special forensic knowledge of the investigator and a formal attitude to his duties as a prosecutor are considered as the main cause of errors. This problem is aggravated by scientific progress, the continuous improvement of the methods, technologies and techniques used in the production of examinations, the expansion of the range of issues being solved and the increase in their complexity.
The role and possibilities of the prosecutor, as the procedural manager, regarding the timely detection and prevention of these errors are considered. It was noted that the effective work of the prosecutor in this direction requires special forensic knowledge. On the other hand, the imparting of deep knowledge simultaneously both in jurisprudence and in various fields of special knowledge of one person seems to be an extremely difficult and not always expedient decision.
In connection with the above, it is proposed to introduce the specialization of prosecutors according to the direction of the crimes, the investigation of which is under their procedural guidance. It is also recommended to introduce the practice of conducting specialized advanced training courses, to which employees of expert institutions should be involved. The latter will not only increase the information content of the courses, but will also facilitate the exchange of practical experience and scientific opinions between prosecutors and forensic experts. In addition, it is proposed to introduce the institute of forensic prosecutors, whose duties will include advisory assistance in some cases when there is a need for special forensic knowledge, including when appointing forensic examinations and when evaluating an expert opinion.
References
Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy: zakon Ukrainy [Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine] vid 13.04.2012 No4651-VI. Baza danykh «Zakonodavstvo Ukrainy» [Database ‘Legislation of Ukraine’]. Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy. URL: http://zakon5.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17
Senchenko N.M. (2014). Otsinka vysnovku eksperta v kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Evaluation of the expert's conclusion in criminal proceedings]. Naukovyi visnyk Khersonskoho derzhavnoho universytetu [Scientific Bulletin of Kherson State University], Vyp. 4. P. 243–247. URL: http://ir.stu.cn.ua/123456789/5569
Postanova Plenumu Verkhovnoho SuduUkrainy No 8 vid 30.05.1997 «Pro sudovu ekspertyzu v kryminalnykh i tsyvilnykh spravakh». Baza danykh «Zakonodavstvo Ukrainy» [Database ‘Legislation of Ukraine’].Verkhovna Rada Ukrainy. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0008700-97
Shcherbakovskii M.G. (2005). Sudebnye ekspertizy: naznachenie, proizvodstvo, ispolzovanie [Forensic expertise: appointment, conduction, use]: uchebno-prakticheskoe posobie. Kharkov, 544 p.
Averianova T.V. (2006). Sudebnaia ekspertiza [Forensic expertise]. Moskva, P.467.
Izitov O. (2015). Rol i znachennia kryminalistychnoi pidhotovky prokuroriv – protsecualnykh kerivnykiv dosudovoho rozsliduvannia [The role of forensic preparation of prosecutors – procedural heads of pre-trial investigation]. Visnyk prokuratury [Bulletin of the Prosecutor's Office], No 7(169), P. 118–124.
Paliukh A.I. (2016). Uchast prokurora v dokazuvanni pid chas dosudovoho rozsliduvannia [Participation of the prosecutor in proving a pre-trial investigation]: dys. ... kand. yur. nauk: 12.00.09. Lviv, 206 p.
Shutemova T.V. (2018). Otsenka prokurorom zakliucheniia sudebnogo eksperta po ugolovnym delam. [Evaluation by the prosecutor of the conclusion of the forensic expert in criminal cases]. Vestnik VUiT [Bulletin of VUiT], No 3. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/otsenka-prokurorom-zaklyucheniya-sudebnogo-eksperta-po-ugolovnym-delam.