2023Uzhhorod National University Herald Series LawOpen access

Correlation of an expert’s opinion with a specialist’s opinion in criminal proceedings

E. Lukyanchikov, B. Lukyanchikov, O. Mykytenko

Open full text 1 citations

Abstract

This article examines the issue of the procedure and forms of use of specialized knowledge in criminal proceedings. It is noted that the main tools of cognitive activities for the investigation of criminal offenses are investigative (search) actions aimed at finding traces of a criminal offense, their research and the formation of court evidence. An analysis of the opinions of scientists regarding the evolution of forms of using special knowledge in criminal justice at different historical stages was carried out. Attention is drawn to the gradual expansion of the forms of use of specialized knowledge which is being enshrined in the current criminal procedure legislation. The author analyzes the scientific studies which reveal the essence of special knowledge, its importance for establishing the circumstances of a criminal offense, the subjects who can use special knowledge, and the procedural documents which record the process of application of special knowledge and its evidentiary value. The author compares the requirements which must be met by a person involved in criminal proceedings as a specialist and an expert. The author shows significant differences in the requirements for these participants to criminal proceedings. On this basis, it is proved that a specialist’s opinion may be consistent with an expert’s opinion, provided that all other requirements are the same. Since the qualification requirements for a person who has special knowledge in a certain field and is involved in criminal proceedings as a specialist and an expert are different, and the regulatory procedure for their involvement in criminal proceedings is different, it is considered impossible to put an equal sign between the specialist’s opinion and the expert’s opinion as a proven source of evidence. The author substantiates the proposal to change Part 3 of Article 214 of the CPC of Ukraine and to restate it in the following wording: “In order to clarify the circumstances of a criminal offense, prior to entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, it may be 3) an expert opinion may be obtained...” and so on. This will contribute to the formation of reliable and high-quality evidence in criminal misdemeanor proceedings

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article examines the issue of the procedure and forms of use of specialized knowledge in criminal proceedings. It is noted that the main tools of cognitive activities for the investigation of criminal offenses are investigative (search) actions aimed at finding traces of a criminal offense, their research and the formation of court evidence. An analysis of the opinions of scientists regarding the evolution of forms of using special knowledge in criminal justice at different historical stages was carried out. Attention is drawn to the gradual expansion of the forms of use of specialized knowledge which is being enshrined in the current criminal procedure legislation. The author analyzes the scientific studies which reveal the essence of special knowledge, its importance for establishing the circumstances of a criminal offense, the subjects who can use special knowledge, and the procedural documents which record the process of application of special knowledge and its evidentiary value. The author compares the requirements which must be met by a person involved in criminal proceedings as a specialist and an expert. The author shows significant differences in the requirements for these participants to criminal proceedings. On this basis, it is proved that a specialist’s opinion may be consistent with an expert’s opinion, provided that all other requirements are the same. Since the qualification requirements for a person who has special knowledge in a certain field and is involved in criminal proceedings as a specialist and an expert are different, and the regulatory procedure for their involvement in criminal proceedings is different, it is considered impossible to put an equal sign between the specialist’s opinion and the expert’s opinion as a proven source of evidence. The author substantiates the proposal to change Part 3 of Article 214 of the CPC of Ukraine and to restate it in the following wording: “In order to clarify the circumstances of a criminal offense, prior to entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, it may be 3) an expert opinion may be obtained...” and so on. This will contribute to the formation of reliable and high-quality evidence in criminal misdemeanor proceedings

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article examines the issue of the procedure and forms of use of specialized knowledge in criminal proceedings. It is noted that the main tools of cognitive activities for the investigation of criminal offenses are investigative (search) actions aimed at finding traces of a criminal offense, their research and the formation of court evidence. An analysis of the opinions of scientists regarding the evolution of forms of using special knowledge in criminal justice at different historical stages was carried out. Attention is drawn to the gradual expansion of the forms of use of specialized knowledge which is being enshrined in the current criminal procedure legislation. The author analyzes the scientific studies which reveal the essence of special knowledge, its importance for establishing the circumstances of a criminal offense, the subjects who can use special knowledge, and the procedural documents which record the process of application of special knowledge and its evidentiary value. The author compares the requirements which must be met by a person involved in criminal proceedings as a specialist and an expert. The author shows significant differences in the requirements for these participants to criminal proceedings. On this basis, it is proved that a specialist’s opinion may be consistent with an expert’s opinion, provided that all other requirements are the same. Since the qualification requirements for a person who has special knowledge in a certain field and is involved in criminal proceedings as a specialist and an expert are different, and the regulatory procedure for their involvement in criminal proceedings is different, it is considered impossible to put an equal sign between the specialist’s opinion and the expert’s opinion as a proven source of evidence. The author substantiates the proposal to change Part 3 of Article 214 of the CPC of Ukraine and to restate it in the following wording: “In order to clarify the circumstances of a criminal offense, prior to entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, it may be 3) an expert opinion may be obtained...” and so on. This will contribute to the formation of reliable and high-quality evidence in criminal misdemeanor proceedings

Key concepts: Expert opinion, Legislation, Criminal investigation, Criminal justice, Value (mathematics), Psychology, Criminal procedure, Process (computing)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Correlation of an expert’s opinion with a specialist’s opinion in criminal proceedings — Research Paper | ScholarLens