the Conclusion

Results of the carried out dissertational research allow to draw following conclusions on the done work.

1. The essence of special knowledge in the criminal trial as which the author understands a professional knowledge in various areas of a science, technicians of art and the crafts used by the judge, the public prosecutor, the inspector, the investigator independently, and also by attraction of the experts operating in criminal trial as experts and experts, for realisation of statutory functions and achievement of the purposes facing to the criminal trial is specified.

2. The approach to classification of use of special knowledge in the modern criminal trial is generated. The author considers, that the given classification needs to be carried out on the basis of the operating criminal procedure law. Classification of use of special knowledge on remedial and not remedial kinds is offered.

3. The essence of the conclusion of the expert as new kind of courts of evidence in modern criminal trial is defined, the approach concerning the bases, an order and tactics of its use in the course of proving on criminal cases is generated. Inadmissibility pravoprimenitelnoj the practice based on groundless substitution of results of expert testimony in court, by the conclusion of the expert, other documents (in sense of item 84 UPK the Russian Federation) is theoretically proved.

By results of the carried out research on the given problem we consider, that is necessary and expediently in the near future accurately to differentiate in UPK the Russian Federation the conclusion of the expert. Such perfection of legal regulation will promote a mess exception in understanding of essence of the specified kind of proofs judges, inspectors, lawyers, and also participants of the criminal trial, not having legal preparation.

4. The problem of appointment and carrying out of expert testimony in court before commencing a suit by carrying out rather - the legal analysis with one of the provided operatively-search actions - research of subjects and documents both regarding a legislative regulation, and in sphere modern pravoprimenitelnoj experts is investigated. The parallel between results of expert testimony in court and research of subjects and documents concerning formation (use) in sphere of HORDES and criminal trial is drawn. Perfection ways of standard - legal regulation of the considered legal institutions are offered.

5. Results of studying and generalisation of modern expert and judicial-investigatory practice have allowed to come to conclusion that some positions connected with expert testimony in court, until recently considered as postulates, it is expedient to review in modern conditions.

Differentiation of knowledge, in various spheres of the public relations, generating, in turn, narrow specialisation in legal sphere, and also constant increase in quantity of standard legal acts, first of all in economy sphere, the legal questions demanding legal knowledge have allowed to prove theoretically expediency of the permission by means of expert testimony in court.

Research has shown, that the permission of such questions, is admissible and it is expedient by manufacture of various sorts (kinds) of expert testimonies in court on criminal cases.

By the author of dissertation it is underlined, that, definitely having reviewed a postulate fixed in the corresponding Decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR in 1971, nevertheless it is necessary to concretise the approach concerning the permission by means of examination of legal questions.

It is especially important to define and concretise those remedial and financially-legal questions on which anybody except bodies of criminal prosecution, the public prosecutor and court cannot give answers. The given concrete definition is expedient for fixing in the Decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the questions connected with expert testimony in court. Besides in the given document it is offered to pay special attention to the questions, concerning techniques of expert researches and to the body status (ov), consisting (them) from representatives of expert community by whom (ymi) typical expert techniques are considered and adjusted.

6. The author carries out the analysis of the modern domestic legislation which have revealed essential collisions in proclaimed Constitution of the Russian Federation and UPK the Russian Federation sostjazatelnoj to the form of the criminal trial. Concerning a stage of preliminary investigation it is possible and only with certain reservations to establish presence of some elements of competitiveness at participants of process from protection, and also at the suspect and its legal representative in relation to appointment and expert testimony in court carrying out.

In sostjazatelnoj models of the domestic criminal trial in the dissertation it is theoretically proved distinct from the basic functions (charge, protection, justice) criminally - remedial function which is carried out by the court expert.

The court expert is not the subject of proving, therefore it should not, first, participating in realisation of the right of the expert initiative directly to realise charge or protection function, and secondly, to interfere with the mechanism of realisation of any legitimate rights of participants of the criminal trial. On the other hand, the participants of the criminal trial defending the remedial interests, owing to realisation of the function allocated with the law, should observe a principle of independence of the expert, including at appointment and examination carrying out.

7. The author analyses possibility of construction of expert testimony in court according to sostjazatelnoj the form not only on judicial, but also on pretrial stages. The conclusion that from the point of view of a principle of competitiveness and equality of the parties, the given approach in the theoretical plan, in business of realisation of constitutional laws of participants of process has positive character, but its distribution in modern domestic pravoprimenitelnoj to practice in full is thus drawn can provoke a number of problems. The probability of occurrence of complexities and obstacles in maintenance of the purposes facing to criminal trial is great. On this thought that circumstance pushes, first of all, that the majority of material evidences (objects of examination) the rule of possible damage by their expert during research etc. demand the special remedial mode including the control over their condition, Therefore the principle of competitiveness of the legal proceedings, fixed in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, is expediently limited now in criminally - remedial sphere on a number of legal proceedings, including concerning expert testimony in court.

At the same time, it is necessary to improve institute of the statement of petitions to the suspects convicted, victims concerning appointment and expert testimony in court carrying out. Besides in criminal trial practice it is necessary to aspire to an exception of the formal and unilateral approach of judges to an estimation of actions (inactivity) of bodies of criminal prosecution concerning realisation of the petitions declared by participants of the criminal trial at a stage of preliminary investigation by consideration of corresponding complaints.

8. In sphere of legal regulation of activity of not state organisations which are engaged in carrying out of expert researches on criminal and civil cases during the modern period as have shown results of the carried out research, organizational problems, including absence of uniform scientifically - methodical approach to carrying out of expert researches, the mechanism of certification of expert shots (including the provided bases of deprivation of employees of not state expert organisations of the right of independent manufacture of this or that kind of examinations, owing to the found out incompetence of the expert, a summer residence by it of the false conclusion) are not resolved, etc.

To the decision of the specified problems in a field of activity it is judicial - expert establishments and the organisations the adoption of law źAbout expert testimony in court╗ which could make active and raise a role of use of special knowledge in modern legal proceedings would promote.

9. As a result of studying modern investigatory and judiciary practice on criminal cases in dissertational research the big attention is paid to use analysis in proving by participants of the criminal trial, first of all from protection in the conditions of a principle of competitiveness of the parties, the various proofs based on carrying out of researches, but behind expert testimony in court frameworks. Practice of use of the conclusion of the expert, other documents (documents-proofs) attached by court to body of evidence and removal of total decisions on business on the basis of data, in them containing is analysed. The negative relation to use in proving of remedial means is expressed and given reason, is groundless substituting the expert's statement. Such practice as it has been established, in many respects is promoted by deficiency of accurate is standard-legal regulation both in sphere of process of proving as a whole, and in the field of use of special knowledge.

Results of the executed research have confirmed an urgency of the chosen theme.

Materials which have been collected, thought over and analysed, those processes which have been revealed, those facts which it was possible to generalise, those ideas and reasons that have arisen thereupon, in our opinion, will be useful for pravoprimenitelnoj experts and are interesting to modern jurisprudence.

<< | >>
A source: Gorjanov Jury Igorevich. EXPERT TESTIMONY IN COURT In the MODERN CRIMINAL TRIAL: LEGAL REGULATION And PRAVOPRIMENITELNAJA PRACTICE. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Moscow -. 2006

More on topic the Conclusion:

  1. the Conclusion
  4. the Conclusion
  6. the Pathomorphologic conclusion
  12. the Conclusion