Classification of forensic examinations

Classification (division) of forensic examinations can be made on various grounds: the scope of the study, the sequence of conduct, the number and composition of experts; the nature of the (industry) special knowledge.

In terms of the scope of research, examinations are divided into basic and additional (Article 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 87 of the APC). Additional examination is appointed when the findings of the main examination are incomplete or unclear. The vagueness of the conclusion is expressed in that it cannot be judged on specific facts, to establish whether the conclusion is positive or negative, categorical or probable.

If the expert did not examine all the objects presented at his disposal, but only a part of them or decided only some of the questions put to him, such an examination is incomplete. For example, only 30 of the signatures submitted to an expert to establish their authenticity were examined, only 28, and regarding the other two, the expert opinion does not contain answers to the questions asked. Additional expertise is also appointed in cases where, after the expert study, new questions arise related to the study of the same object that have not previously been put before an expert. It is the last reason for the appointment of additional expertise most often found in practice. The second, third, etc. the examinations of the same as the primary one, the genus, the species and the subspecies assigned in the case for solving new issues on new objects, are not additional - these are primary examinations.

As an additional examination is appointed not for the sake of denying the results of the basic examination, but for clarifying, clarifying, specifying, in most cases it is entrusted to the same expert, who is already familiar with the circumstances of the case. However, another expert may be appointed.

The sequence of the examination are divided into primary and repeated. Repeated is an examination performed on the same objects and resolving the same issues as the primary examination, the conclusion of which is deemed unwarranted, is questionable or during the production of which violations of the procedural rules were committed. This is possible, for example, in cases where the conclusion of the primary examination contradicts objectively established facts, or does not agree with the reliable circumstances of the case, or is done without taking into account the facts relating to the subject of examination, as well as if during the appointment or production of the primary examination violations of procedural norms were committed, regulating the appointment and production of forensic examinations, in particular the assignment of the examination to a person interested in the outcome of the case, or incompetent; unreasonable rejection of petitions of participants in the process in connection with the examination (for example, the appointment of an expert from among these persons, of asking any questions to an expert). Re-examination is entrusted to another expert or experts.

When appointing a repeated forensic examination in a civil and arbitration process, the resolution part of the decision must indicate that this examination is repeated, the issues raised for the resolution of the initial examination, and the conclusions obtained and the result of its conduct are given.

As a rule, the appointment of a re-examination is a consequence of a negative assessment of the expert opinion by the subjects who appointed the examination. If, as a result of the repeated forensic examination, the expert comes to conclusions other than in the initial examination, it would be desirable to have an explanation of this result in the text of the expert opinion. Of course, judicial experts do not have the right to evaluate each other's conclusions - this is the prerogative of the court. However, the expert may comment on the methodology used in the initial examination from the point of view of its scientific soundness and correctness of application in the study of these objects, as well as provide other information useful for the court. Contradictions in the findings of the primary and re-forensic examinations can be explained to the subject, who appointed the examinations, during the interrogation of experts.

A typical mistake encountered in court practice is the appointment of a re-examination solely on the grounds that the expert’s findings do not suit the court either in its form (probable) or because it does not fit into the version that is preferred. The probable form of the findings does not in itself constitute a basis for the appointment of a re-examination, unless the evaluation of the opinion raises doubts about the scientific validity of the latter or the competence of the expert.

In terms of the number and composition of the executors, judicial examinations are divided into individual ones, commission fees (art. 83 GIC, art. 84 AIC) and complex (art. 82 CIC, art. 85 AIC). A single expert examination is carried out by one expert, a commission - a commission consisting of two or more experts of the same specialization. A comprehensive examination is one in which experts who specialize in different classes or kinds of forensic examinations are engaged in jointly solving the same questions and formulating a common conclusion. The conclusions made by each expert independently, without the participation of specialists in other fields of knowledge, are signed by him individually. Conclusions on general issues, which, as a rule, are few in complex examinations, are signed by all forensic experts who participated in the examination. It is assumed that each of the participants in a comprehensive examination, in addition to narrow specialization, possesses knowledge in the border areas of the sciences that were used in giving an opinion. An example of such an examination can serve as a comprehensive trasological and autotechnical examination, appointed to establish the mechanism of a road accident.

As mentioned above, according to Part 1 of Art. 84 AIC commission nature of the examination determined by the arbitral tribunal. Since the comprehensive examination according to Art. 85 APC is an examination performed by a commission of experts of various specialties, i.e. complex examination is necessarily commission, such examination should also be appointed only by the arbitral tribunal. However, the need for the production of a comprehensive examination can be identified only in the course of its production. Other procedural codes do not have this problem. It seems that this rule in the AIC is not reasonable.

Commission expertise is appointed in particularly difficult cases, as well as in the production of repeated examinations. Some kinds of examinations are performed only as a commission. So, according to Art. 52 Basic Laws of the Russian Federation on the protection of the health of citizens of July 22, 1993 No. 5487-1 forensic psychiatric examinations of living persons are carried out by forensic psychiatric expert commissions of at least three psychiatrists.

The procedural regulation of the production of complex examinations (Article 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 85 of the APC) put an end to many years of discussion in the literature on the legality of complex forensic examination, since such an examination received direct legislative consolidation. It is necessary to specify the concepts used in judicial and expert practice: a complex of examinations, a comprehensive study within one examination, a comprehensive examination1. These concepts are epistemologically unambiguous and indicate a comprehensive approach to the subject of the study.

In one civil case, it is possible to produce a complex of different forensic examinations both in relation to the same object, and a group of objects. For example, according to a document containing a handwritten text, signature and seal, it is possible to assign a complex of forensic examinations:

- judicial handwriting examination of the handwritten text (whether the text was not executed by this person);

- forensic technical examination of the details of the documents (to verify the authenticity of the signature and seal);

- forensic technical examination of materials of documents to establish the composition of the paper, dyes, limitation of the execution of the text.

These forensic examinations are carried out independently, and each is drawn up by a separate conclusion. It is the responsibility of the head of the expert institution to decide on the sequence of the production of these forensic examinations, since changes may be made to the object of expertise when conducting expert studies.

As part of the examination of one type, a comprehensive study of the same material evidence can be performed using various methods, but such a study is not a comprehensive examination, even if it is carried out by an expert commission. Let's explain this with an example. In the case of a fire wire is withdrawn. The question of whether their melting occurred as a result of short circuits (before or during a fire) or the thermal effect of a fire, is carried out using such modern instrumental methods as scanning electron microscopy, X-ray diffraction, metallographic and gas analysis. The study can be carried out by one metal expert who owns these methods, as well as by different experts, each of whom specializes in one method, but all of them, being experts in the field of metal-science examinations, also own other research methods. Despite the fact that the decisions on the appointment of such examinations often feature the term "complex", they are not and are examinations using a set of methods within the same type of forensic examination.

Such an examination is complex, during the production of which the solution of the problem is impossible without the simultaneous joint participation of specialists in various fields of knowledge in formulating one common conclusion2. The conclusions made by the expert independently, without the participation of specialists from other fields of knowledge, are signed by him individually. Conclusions on general issues, which, as a rule, are few in complex examination, are signed by all experts who participated in the examination. It is assumed that each expert has not only a narrow specialization, but also knowledge in the border fields of science, which are used in giving an opinion.

It should be noted that often not all experts of the commission participate in the formation of the final answer to the question posed. Some of the experts investigate the circumstances, the clarification of which is necessary to resolve the issue raised for the resolution of the examination, but at the same time the issues that they investigate may be absent in the resolution. In this case, the experts enjoy their right to give an opinion within their competence on issues, although not put in the resolution (definition) on the appointment of a forensic examination, but related to the subject of the expert study (part 2 of article 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, part 2 of article . 86 APK). Since, in fact, they do not participate in the production of a comprehensive examination, they should not subscribe to general conclusions. In this case, the conclusion of a comprehensive examination indicates that the general conclusion is based on the facts established by these experts. We illustrate this with an example.

In the case of a traffic accident, a comprehensive transport-trasological and autotechnical forensic examination was appointed, the resolution of which brought up the issue of the mechanism of a road accident. The study necessitated the analysis of fuels and lubricants, traces of which were removed from the roadway at the scene. The findings of this study, carried out by an expert specializing in the examination of petroleum products, served as a basis for judging the location of vehicles after an accident and, together with other factual data, were the starting point for the experts who carried out a comprehensive examination. The conclusion about the mechanism of a road accident was made and signed by a trasologist and an auto technician, and a third expert put his signature only under the conclusion concerning the composition of combustive materials.

By the nature of the special knowledge used in them, forensic examinations are diverse, since issues arising in the course of legal proceedings may relate to any sphere of human activity. In the general theory of forensic examination, it is customary to subdivide them into classes, genus and species, subspecies. The basis of this classification is laid objects and tasks for long-existing forensic examinations and special knowledge for emerging classes, genera and types of forensic examinations. We give here a general classification of forensic examinations of childbirth, although some of these examinations, by their very nature, are not appointed in civil cases:

- forensic medical examinations;

- forensic examination of destroyed marking marks;

- forensic examination of documents;

- judicial speech expertise;

- judicial phototechnical examination;

- judicial portrait examination;

- forensic examination of weapons and traces of its use;

- forensic examination of substances and materials;

- forensic examination;

- forensic biological expertise;

- forensic examination of food and beverages;

- forensic examinations;

- forensic psychiatric examinations;

- forensic psychological examination;

- forensic economic examination;

- forensic engineering, engineering, technological and engineering and transport expertise;

- forensic computer and technical expertise;

- forensic environmental expertise;

- forensic agricultural expertise;

- forensic art expert examinations, etc.