Trends and functions of criminalistics in adversarial criminal proceedings

Abstract

This article addresses contemporary issues surrounding the application of forensic and criminalistic knowledge in criminal procedure. Particular attention is paid to the role of criminalistics in equipping law enforcement and judicial practice with scientific insights. Criminalistics endows the judicial framework with substantive meaning, guiding the entire process of establishing the truth and achieving justice in criminal proceedings. Within this framework, the article defines the relationship between criminalistics and the theory of evidence, highlighting the discipline's dynamic nature and its sensitivity to legislative and procedural reforms.

In a sense, criminalistics serves an enabling function within criminal and other judicial proceedings. The development and implementation of criminalistic tools depend heavily on the specific end-user (investigator, investigating judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, judge, etc.), the structure of criminal procedure, and the prescribed rules for conducting investigative (search) and judicial actions.

As a scientific discipline in an era of globalization, criminalistics exhibits several overarching trends—most notably the expansion of its scope and domain of influence. Today, criminalistics develops techniques, tools, and methodologies tailored for investigative, prosecutorial, judicial, defense, and expert activities. This expansion has led to the emergence of new subfields within the structure of criminalistics, including judicial criminalistics, prosecutorial criminalistics, defense-oriented criminalistics (advocatology), among others. The author advances the concept of "adversarial criminalistics" within criminal procedure, emphasizing that forensic data and methods must be equally accessible to both the prosecution and the defense.

Changes to judicial institutions and legal mechanisms substantially impact the outcomes of criminal investigations and trials. The article provides a critical analysis of several recent amendments to criminal procedural legislation, outlining their adverse effects on law enforcement practice. From a criminalistics perspective, the author offers insight into specific statutory provisions, such as the "admission of guilt," "expedited" and "simplified" judicial proceedings, "hearsay testimony," and the "use of leading questions" during cross-examination. Ultimately, the efficiency of investigative and judicial activities relies on tools that are both effective and legally admissible. Criminalistic techniques must always rest on the fundamentals of criminal procedure—specifically the theory of evidence (encompassing the nature, scope, burden, gathering, and admissibility of evidence). Modern trials must be conducted on a rigorous scientific footing, drawing upon the latest methods, techniques, and technologies.