graduate student from 01.01.2024 until now
343.13
The scientific article is devoted to the consideration of procedural guarantees of the full evidential significance of an expert opinion. The study raises a number of problems that determine the current attitude in practice to an expert opinion as evidence of less legal force compared to other types of evidence. Among the reasons for this approach is not only the unsurmounted accusatory bias, but also the imperfection of thecriminal procedure legislation, which, on the one hand, allows non-powerful participants in the proceedings to receive an expert opinion, and on the other hand, considers only officials conducting criminal proceedings as subjects of collecting evidence (the right of the defense attorney to collect evidence, as specified in the law,is only a terminological tribute to the principle of adversarial proceedings). Based on the conducted research, the author draws conclusions about the need to modernize the norms of criminal procedure legislation in terms of ensuring guarantees of the full evidential significance of an expert opinion, which is a full-fledged independent evidence in a criminal case. At the same time, the author proceeds from the fact that only officials conducting criminal proceedings have the right to collect evidence. However, this does not deprive the nonpower representatives of the parties of the right to obtain a specialist opinion and present it to the court, investigator, or inquiry officer, who have the right to refuse to satisfy the petition only if the information provided is irrelevant to the circumstances to be established.
procedural guarantees, preliminary investigation, defense, defense lawyer, expert opinion, petition, criminal proceedings
1. Zverev I. V. Subjects of proof in criminal proceedings: diss. ... Cand. of Law. Volgograd: Volgograd Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2005. 195 p. (In Russ.)
2. Pobedkin A. V. Theory and methodology of using verbal information in criminal procedural proof: diss. ... Doctor of Law. Moscow: Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2005. P. 126–127. (In Russ.)
3. Shaposhnikov V. L. Problems of collecting evidence by the prosecution in criminal proceedings in Russia: diss. ... Cand. of Law. Volgograd: Volgograd Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2005. 211 p. (In Russ.)
4. Rossinsky S. B. Collection of evidence as the “first” stage of proving in a criminal case // Legal Bulletin of Samara University. 2020. Vol. 6. No. 3. P. 901–103. (In Russ.)
5. Sheifer S. A. Investigative actions. System and procedural form. Moscow, 2001. 208 p. (In Russ.)
6. Anesheva A. T. Legal regulation of the procedure for familiarization with the resolution on the appointment of a forensic examination and the expert’s report needs to be improved // Russian Judge. 2020. No. 8. P. 42–46. (In Russ.)
7. Bufetova M. Sh., Demeshko I. V. Expert’s opinion as evidence of the defense: current problems of theory and practice // Advocate practice. 2019. No. 3. P. 3–6. (In Russ.)
8. Sukhova O. A. The right of a defense attorney to obtain an expert opinion and submit it for inclusion in the criminal case file: guarantees and problems of enforcement // Problems of Economics and Legal Practice. 2018. No. 3. P. 239–246. (In Russ.)
9. Logvinets E. A., Lyakhova A. M., Katorgina N. P. Problems of using an expert opinion in the implementation of defense in criminal cases // Scientific Bulletin of Belgorod State University. Series: philosophy, sociology, law. 2018. Vol. 43. No. 1. P. 137–141. (In Russ.)
10. Sheifer S. A. Where is Russian legal proceedings heading? (Reflections on the vectors of development of criminal procedural legislation) // State and Law. 2007. No. 1. P. 28–37. (In Russ.)
11. Kukarnikova T. E. Expert opinion and specialist opinion: their relationship and role in criminal proceedings // Voronezh forensic readings: collection of scientific papers; edited by O. Ya. Baev. Voronezh, 2010. P. 206–213. (In Russ.)
12. Mailis N. P. On the relationship between specialist and expert opinions. Current issues in the theory and practice of criminal proceedings and forensic science: collection of articles. Moscow, Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2004. P. 52–54. (In Russ.)
13. Rasulova N. S. Expert opinion as a means of proof in criminal proceedings: diss … Cand. of Law. Moscow, 2022. 200 p. (In Russ.)
14. Pobedkin A. V. The principle of freedom of evidence assessment and its influence on the legality of pre-trial proceedings // Transactions of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2017. No. 1 (41). P. 104–108. (In Russ.)
15. Rasulova N. S. Procedural registration of information received by the defense from a specialist as evidence in pre-trial proceedings // Bulletin of Ural Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2017. No. 2. P. 3–6. (In Russ.)
16. Afanasyeva A. A. Features of the implementation of the rights of the defense in collecting evidence in criminal cases // Bulletin of Krasnodar University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2023. No. 3 (61). P. 60–65. (In Russ.)
