The opinion of the forensic expert and his assessment

In Art. 25 of the Law on Forensic Expertise states that on the basis of the conducted studies, taking into account their results, the expert on his own behalf or the commission of experts gives a written opinion and signatory. If a forensic examination was carried out in a state or non-state forensic expert institution, the signatures of the expert or commission of experts are certified by the seal of this institution. The signature of the private expert at the discretion of the person or body that appointed the forensic examination may also be certified.

The legislator regulates the content of the opinion of the forensic expert only in the most general terms. In the conclusion of the expert or commission of experts should be reflected:

- the time and place of the forensic examination;

- grounds for the production of forensic examination;

- information about the body or person who appointed forensic examination;

- information about the forensic expert institution, the expert (last name, first name, patronymic, education, specialty, work experience, academic degree and academic title, position), which is entrusted with the production of forensic examination;

- expert warning in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation on responsibility for giving a deliberately false conclusion;

- questions posed to the expert or the commission of experts;

- objects of research and case materials submitted to the expert for the production of forensic examination;

- information about the participants in the process who were present during the production of the forensic examination;

- content and results of studies with an indication of the applied methods;

- Evaluation of research results, the rationale and the formulation of conclusions but questions posed.

Contents of art. 25 of the Law on Forensic Expertise almost literally coincides with the content of Art. 86 GIC and Art. 86 APK. They indicate that the conclusion is given by the expert only in writing, signed by him and should contain a detailed description of the research made, the result of their conclusions and reasonable answers to the questions raised by the investigation and the court. If in the course of the examination, the expert establishes the circumstances relevant to the case, about which he was not asked questions, he has the right to include conclusions about these circumstances in his conclusion.

The conclusion of the forensic examination, the form and content of which practically do not differ in the civil and arbitration proceedings, traditionally has a certain structure and usually consists of several parts.

The introductory part contains:

- the number and name of the case for which an examination is scheduled;

- a brief description of the circumstances of the case relevant to the study;

- information about the body and the person who appointed the examination, the legal basis for the purpose of the examination (decision or definition);

name of the expert institution, background information about the person (or persons) who performed the examination (last name, first name, patronymic, education, expert qualification, academic degree, title, experience of expert work);

- type and type of expertise.

The following are the materials received for the examination, the method of their delivery, the issues submitted for expert approval. Questions resolved by an expert on his own initiative are also given in the introductory part of the conclusion. If the examination is commissionable, complex, additional or repeated, this is indicated in the introductory part of the report, which also describes when and by whom the previous examinations were carried out, what conclusions the experts came to and what are the reasons for the appointment of a repeated or additional examination.

The questions submitted to the resolution of the expert are given in the introductory part without any changes in their wording. If the expert believes that some of them go (partially or completely) beyond his special knowledge or do not need special knowledge to answer these questions, he notes this in conclusion.

Frequently, the wording of the questions does not correspond to generally accepted recommendations, and the expert gives the question in its own form. As we noted above, this is a rather free interpretation of the expert’s right to go beyond the expert task and answer questions that have not been asked to resolve it. In addition, the wording of the question, given by the expert, is often not wider, but already the question put to its resolution initially. Neither the Code of Civil Procedure, nor in the agro-industrial complex, nor in the Law on Forensic Expertise, the forensic expert is granted the right to reformulate the issues submitted for his resolution. He can only apply to the court for additional materials. But is it possible to consider clarifying questions as providing additional materials, because the questions are already fixed in the procedural document - the definition of the appointment of a forensic examination?

In practice, this problem occurs every day in all categories of cases. For example, when examining in a court of arbitration a case involving a fire at an industrial facility, the expert was asked: "How does reflow of copper wiring relate to a fire?" In accordance with the method of studying metallic conductors in the short-circuit and thermal effects zones1, the expert reformulated the question and gave it as follows: "What is the nature of copper conductors melting? If the melting is caused by a short circuit, did it occur before the start of the fire or during its development? ". Clearly, the last two questions are formulated more correctly and allow the expert to give categorical conclusions of great evidentiary value. But from a formal point of view, the expert went beyond his competence. It seems that a forensic expert should be given the right to reformulate the questions put to his resolution, if they are incorrectly formulated from the point of view of the theory and methodology of forensic examination, and notify the entity that appointed the examination in a certain period of time. If the expert is an employee of a forensic expert institution, he will reconcile the need for changing the wording of the questions with the head of the institution, who, in turn, notifies the subject who has appointed the examination.

In the research part of the conclusion is usually described in detail:

- type of packaging of objects presented for examination, its integrity, details;

- the condition of these objects and comparative samples;

- the process of research on the stages with a description of its methods, the conditions of application of certain methods.

On the basis of the conducted research, a scientific explanation of the identified signs is given, and this description should be logically justified and lead to final conclusions.

If the examination was complex or complex studies were carried out during it, the research part ends with the so-called synthesis part, where experts who are specialists in different kinds or methods of examination summarize the information received separately to formulate a general answer to the question posed.

The last part of the conclusion presents conclusions, i.e. answers to the questions put to the resolution of the examination. If it is impossible to resolve any issue, the expert should indicate the reasons for the refusal in the research section of the report. Conclusions about the circumstances in which questions were not raised and which the expert cites in the framework of an expert initiative are presented at the end of the conclusion.

Expert conclusions by definition are divided into categorical and probable (hypothetical).

A categorical conclusion is a reliable conclusion about the fact regardless of the conditions of its existence, for example, categorical positive conclusions will be that the signature in the will was executed by Mr. N. A categorical negative may be, for example, the conclusion that the driver did not have the technical ability to avoid hitting a pedestrian

If the expert does not find grounds for a categorical conclusion, the conclusions are likely, i.e. presumptive. The likely conclusion is an expert’s reasonable hypothesis about the fact being established and usually reflects an incomplete internal psychological conviction in the reliability of the arguments, the average statistical proof of the fact, the impossibility of achieving complete knowledge. Probable conclusions allow the possibility of the existence of a fact, but do not exclude a completely different (opposite) conclusion. For example, it is most likely that a fire arose from a low-calorie source of heat - a smoldering tobacco product. The reasons for the possible conclusions may be incorrect or incomplete collection of objects to be investigated, loss or absence of the most significant, significant signs of traces, insufficient number of comparative materials, incomplete development of the methodology of expert research, etc.

In relation to the established fact, an expert categorical or probable conclusion can be affirmative (positive) and negative, when the existence of a fact is denied, about which a certain question has been put to the expert.

By the nature of the relationship between inference and its basis, the conclusions are divided into conditional ("if ... then ...") and unconditional. Unconditional conclusion is a recognition of the fact, not limited to any conditions. A conditional conclusion means admitting a fact depending on certain circumstances, reliability of prior knowledge, proof of other facts, for example, the text of the document is not executed on this matrix printer, provided that the printer has not been repaired. Such a conclusion can also be expressed in a categorical and plausible form.

If, as a result of the expert study, it was not possible to arrive at a single solution to the issue, the expert formulates an alternative conclusion - this is a strictly dividing judgment indicating the possibility of the existence of any of the mutually exclusive facts listed in it, the need for the court to choose any one of them and recognize it. in reality. Alternative conclusions are permissible when all alternatives without exception are named, each of which should exclude the others (and then from the falsity of one you can logically come to the truth of the other, from the truth of the first to the falsity of the second). For example, titanium wire, submitted for examination, was manufactured at a metallurgical plant in the city of N. in workshops No. 2 or No. 3.

The opposite alternative is the unambiguous conclusions of the expert, which have only one value - categorical conclusions in which a fact is approved or denied. For example, the categorical conclusion of the judicial author's expert examination is that this anonymous letter was written by Mr. N.

The expert can make a conclusion about the impossibility of solving the issue put to his resolution by an authorized person or body, for example due to the lack of research methodology, incompleteness (poor quality) of objects and other materials put at his disposal, etc.

The basis of a court decision on the case can be based only categorical conclusions. Therefore, only they have evidentiary value. A probable conclusion cannot be such a source, but only allows one to obtain orienting, search information, suggest versions that need to be checked.

An expert opinion can be illustrated with photographs arranged in the form of photo tables, diagrams, diagrams, drawings and other visual materials that are considered as an integral part of the conclusion. A statement of the costs of the examination is also included for inclusion in court costs. The text of the conclusion, conclusions and illustrative materials (each page) are signed by the expert who performed the study.

As it is known, the assessment of the opinion of a forensic expert is understood as the process of establishing the authenticity, relevance and admissibility of an opinion, determining the forms and ways of its use in evidence1. The court conducting the consideration of the case, guided by the law, evaluates the conclusion but its inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, full and objective consideration of all the circumstances of the case in their totality. The expert opinion is not special evidence and is evaluated according to the general rules for evaluating evidence (Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 71 of the APC). However, a specific approach is required to his assessment, since this evidence is based on the use of special knowledge, which the court does not possess. In addition, the procedural procedure for obtaining this evidence after the appointment of a forensic examination is not carried out by the entity who appointed it, and therefore it is the responsibility of the latter to verify compliance with this procedure.

The process of evaluating an expert opinion consists of several successive stages.

1. Verification of compliance with the requirements of the law in the appointment of the examination, which is to find out the answer to the following questions:

1. Is the expert competent in solving the tasks assigned to him and has he gone beyond his competence? During the examination by a private expert, his choice is made by the court, and the question of the competence of the forensic expert is decided upon his appointment. However, in this case, the competence of the expert, who did not cause doubts in the appointment of the examination, may cause those when reading the conclusion. We have already indicated above that it is more difficult to establish the level of competence of private experts. The situation is facilitated when the expert has a higher education in the specialty "Forensic examination" and the qualification "forensic expert" or departmental qualification certificate for the right to conduct examinations of one kind or another. When performing an examination in a forensic expert institution, the choice of an expert is made by the head of the institution, therefore it is necessary to make sure that the expert is competent in assessing the opinion.

2. Has the examination been carried out by a person who is subject to a challenge on the grounds listed in the procedural law (Article 18 of the CCP, Article 23 of the APC)?

3. Are the rights of the participants of the process observed in the appointment and production of the examination (article 79,84,327,358 of the Code of Civil Procedure; article 82,83,86,268 of the APC)?

4. Has the procedural order been violated when obtaining samples for comparative research and fixation in the relevant protocol (Article 81 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 66 of the APC)?

5. Is the procedural form of the expert's opinion adhered to and are all the requisites required for it (Article 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 86 of the APC)?

2. Verification of the authenticity and sufficiency of the material evidence and samples under investigation, in which the authenticity of material evidence and samples, their suitability for research and their sufficiency in order to give a conclusion shall be assessed. The suitability and adequacy of samples for research are determined from the point of view of the used methods of expert research. We specify this position by example.

In the case of a controversial paternity, 1 ml of the liquid blood of the child, the mother and the prospective father were applied to sterile gauze wipes for genetic examination. The samples were then dried in air, packed in paper envelopes, sealed with the signatures of responsible persons, stamps and explanatory notes, and sent for examination. Such removal of samples does not raise doubts about their authenticity, and from the point of view of the research methodology makes them quite suitable and sufficient for examination.

3. Evaluation of the scientific validity of the expert methodology and the legality of its application in this particular case is very difficult, since the judge, as a rule, is not an expert in the field of knowledge to which the study relates. He obtains information on the methodology recommended in these conditions and the possible results of its application from numerous reference and methodological literature. The literature is constantly updated, and the development and improvement of the scientific and methodological support of expert practice leads to the fact that new methods often contradict previously published ones. Guidelines for the production of examinations and produced by different services are often poorly coordinated. Testing and implementation of methods are still not often performed at the interdepartmental level. All these circumstances significantly complicate the assessment of the scientific validity and legitimacy of the application of expert techniques. The situation, however, is changing for the better with the unification and standardization of an increasing number of existing standard forensic expert methodologies, the creation of atlases of methodologies approved by the Federal Interdepartmental Coordination and Methodological Council on the problems of expert research.

Usually, for the resolution of doubts, a repeated commission examination is appointed. However, the same difficulties may arise in its assessment. Some doubts can be resolved during the interrogation of an expert. Here the help of other experts, who can be interrogated as specialists, can be very valuable and explain to the court the peculiarities and scientific validity of this or that method.

When evaluating integrated examinations and studies, the results of applying one expert methodology serve as an initial premise for further research. The direction of the subsequent work on the implementation of the expert task and, ultimately, the final conclusions of the expert depend on their correct interpretation. We illustrate this with an example.

По делу о пожаре в универмаге в ходе комплексной экспертизы исследовались оплавленные медные провода. Эксперт-металловед сделал вывод, что причиной оплавления проводов явилось короткое замыкание, которое имело место до начала пожара. Основываясь на этом, пожарно-технический эксперт заключил, что пожар возник из-за короткого замыкания в электропроводке. При оценке заключения эксперта судом было выявлено, что результаты исследования металловеда были интерпретированы неверно, с отступлением от методики судебной пожарно-технической экспертизы, согласно которой необходимо было выявить наличие причинно-следственной связи между коротким замыканием в электропроводке и возникновением пожара. В частности, путем расчетов следовало установить возможность загорания от капель расплавленного металла объектов, находящихся непосредственно под проводом.

4. Проверка и оценка полноты и всесторонности заключения позволяет судить о том, что:

- исследованы все представленные на экспертизу объекты, причем выявлены все необходимые и достаточные для формулирования ответов на поставленные вопросы диагностические и идентификационные признаки;

- использованы рекомендованные современной наукой и судебно-экспертной практикой методы и методики;

- эксперт дал аргументированные ответы на все поставленные перед ним вопросы либо обосновал отказ дать ответ на один из вопросов;

- в экспертном заключении полно и всесторонне описан ход и результаты исследования, приложен соответствующий иллюстративный материал.

Неполнота экспертного исследования является основанием для назначения дополнительной экспертизы или допроса эксперта.

5. Оценка логической обоснованности хода и результатов экспертного исследования производится путем анализа последовательности стадий экспертного исследования, логической обусловленности этой последовательности, логической обоснованности экспертных выводов промежуточными результатами. В литературе приводятся формально-логические ошибки, встречающиеся в экспертных заключениях1, как, например:

- вывод не является логическим следствием осуществленного экспертом исследования:

- по одному и тому же предмету даны противоречивые выводы экспертов;

- заключение внутренне противоречиво;

- выводы эксперта недостаточно мотивированы. Могут быть выявлены и иные логические ошибки.

6. Проверка относимости результатов экспертного исследования к данному гражданскому делу (т.е. их доказательственное значение), под которой понимают связь с предметом доказывания и с иными обстоятельствами дела, установление которых необходимо для достижения целей судопроизводства. Проверка относимости результатов экспертного исследования при его оценке заключается в выяснении того, входит ли факт, установленный экспертом, в предмет доказывания или в число иных существенных для дела обстоятельств и позволяют ли выводы, сделанные экспертом, этот факт установить, доказать.

7. Проверка соответствия выводов эксперта имеющимся по делу доказательствам, т.е. оценка экспертного заключения в совокупности с другими доказательствами.

В схему оценки заключения могут быть внесены коррективы:

- если эксперт отказался ответить на все поставленные перед ним вопросы или на их часть, оценивается обоснованность отказа. Если отказ признан обоснованным, суд либо отказывается от проведения экспертизы, либо переформулирует экспертное задание, либо поручает производство экспертизы другому эксперту (экспертному учреждению), либо предоставляет необходимые дополнительные материалы;

- если эксперт переформулировал экспертное задание, необходимо оценить, правомерно ли изменение формулировок вопросов, и определить, не изменился ли при этом смысл вопросов, оправданно ли это с научной и редакционной точки зрения;

- если эксперт вышел за пределы экспертного задания (согласно ст. 86 ГПК, ст. 68 АПК), оценивается правомерность расширения экспертного задания с точки зрения квалификации эксперта, допустимости и относимости полученных результатов;

- если эксперт, производивший повторную экспертизу, подверг критическому анализу заключение первичной экспертизы, оба эти заключения должны быть оценены в совокупности. В том числе необходимо проанализировать обоснованность критики первой экспертизы, содержащейся в заключении повторной экспертизы, особенно если имеется расхождение в выводах. Заметим, что критика может касаться только сущности проведенного экспертного исследования, использованных при этом методик. Эксперт не вправе подменять суд и давать оценку доказательственному значению выводов, субъективным или юридическим основаниям дачи ошибочного первичного заключения.

Грамотная и вдумчивая оценка заключения судебной экспертизы, привлечение для консультации специалистов позволяет выявить наиболее часто встречающиеся экспертные ошибки. Однако анализ судебной и экспертной практики, в том числе интервьюирование судей как судов общей юрисдикции, так и арбитражных судов, показывает, что в подавляющем большинстве случаев судей из всего экспертного заключения интересуют лишь выводы эксперта. Фактически оценка ими заключения эксперта обычно сводится только к проверке полноты выводов и их соответствия иным доказательствам по делу. И это понятно, поскольку, по нашему глубокому убеждению, судья не в состоянии оценить ни научную обоснованность выводов, ни правильность выбора и применения методов исследования, ни соответствие этого метода современным достижениям данной области научного знания, поскольку для такой оценки они должны обладать теми же знаниями, что и эксперт.

Трудно поддается оценке уровень компетентности судебного эксперта, выполнявшего экспертизу. В заключении указывается образование, специальность, стаж работы, ученая степень и ученое звание, занимаемая должность, но все это, даже ученая степень и звание, еще не свидетельствуют о компетентности эксперта в вопросах конкретного экспертного исследования. Разумеется, далеко не всякое экспертное заключение является настолько сложным, что недоступно для оценки субъектом, назначившим экспертизу. Но все усложняющиеся задачи судебной экспертизы, появление новых родов и видов экспертиз, базирующихся на самых современных технологиях, развитие и усложнение судебно-экспертных методик ведет к неуклонному росту сложностей в оценке научной состоятельности экспертных исследований.

In our opinion, the only way to verify the scientific validity and reliability of an expert opinion is the real competitiveness of experts, for which it is necessary to provide the right to assign forensic examinations to the parties in a civil and arbitration process. In addition, it is time, avoiding non-life, ephemeral formulations, to clearly define in the law simple and publicly available criteria by which the subjects of forensic examination should be guided in assessing expert opinions.

The introduction of a specialist institution in civil proceedings, which strengthens the real competition of the parties and contributes to the objectification of the proof process, demonstrates that the legislator, although indirectly, recognizes that the assessment of the findings of the forensic examination from the point of view of scientific validity, reliability and sufficiency is a very difficult task for the court. impossible without the real competition of knowledgeable persons in court.

Let us now dwell on the consequences of the evaluation of the opinion of the forensic expert. If the assessment results are positive, the expert opinion as evidence can be used in the evidence to obtain new and verify the available evidence, to recognize the evidence of a fact, to determine the direction of further proceedings.

The consequences of a negative assessment of the expert opinion may be different depending on what was the basis of such an assessment. If this was the result of procedural violations committed in the appointment or production of forensic examination, the incompetence of the expert, his unreasonable refusal to give an opinion or doubts about the reliability of the results obtained and the conclusions reached, then a repeated examination may be appointed. Re-examination may be appointed in the case when the expert's opinion contradicts other evidence collected in the case, because, as we indicated above, the expert's opinion is not any special evidence and a priori advantage cannot be given to expert conclusions.

An expert opinion in a civil and arbitration process may be assessed by all participants in the proceedings. The court may agree with the assessment of any of them, but it may also reject their considerations. When considering the case in the appellate, cassation and supervisory procedure, the higher court has the opportunity to assess the expert's opinion in full.

After reviewing the expert's opinion or the report on the impossibility of giving an opinion, the court has the right to question the expert (Article 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 86 of the APC).

Interrogation of an expert is done to clarify the expert’s competence and his attitude to the case, as well as to clarify this conclusion, when the expert in his testimony:

- explains the essence of special terms and formulations;

- justifies the need to use the chosen research methodology, instruments and equipment;

- explains how the identified signs allowed him to draw certain conclusions, to what extent the conclusions are based on the materials of the civil case.

If members of the commission of experts came to different conclusions, during the interrogation, the reasons for these discrepancies are ascertained.

The interrogation of an expert should not be confused with additional expertise (Article 87 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Article 87 of the APC), the grounds for the appointment of which coincide with some of the grounds for conducting an interrogation: lack of clarity or incompleteness of the expert’s opinion. The criterion for distinguishing the grounds for the interrogation of an expert and the appointment of additional expertise is the need for additional research. If to clarify the conclusions of the expert or clarify the content of the conclusion does not require such research, the expert is questioned. Otherwise, an additional examination is appointed.

Interrogation of an expert is made only after giving them an opinion. In GP K and AP K the testimony of the expert is missing in the list of evidence (Article 55 of the CCP, Article 64 of the APC). However, they are like a continuation of the conclusion and therefore have evidentiary value.

In a civil proceeding, an expert opinion is announced at a court session. In order to clarify and supplement the conclusion, the expert may be asked questions. The first person to ask questions is the person who requested the examination, his representative, and then other persons participating in the case, their representatives ask questions. If the examination is appointed on the initiative of the court, the claimant and his representative shall first ask the expert questions. Judges have the right to ask questions to the expert at any time during his interrogation (part 1 of article 187 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

When considering cases by an arbitration court at the request of a person participating in a case, or on the initiative of an arbitration court, an expert may be summoned to a court session. After the conclusion of the conclusion, the expert is entitled to give the necessary explanations on it, and is also obliged to answer additional questions of the persons participating in the case and the court. The expert’s answers to additional questions are recorded in the minutes of the court session. The order of questions by persons involved in the case is not regulated by the APC, however, according to Art. 153 of the APC, it follows that this procedure is established by the court.

As a rule, first the questions are asked by the person (or his representative), at whose request the expert is appointed, and then by other persons. The arbitration court has the right to reasonably reject the questions proposed by the above-mentioned persons and put forward new questions on its own initiative.

The questions put to the expert and his answers are recorded in the protocol of the court session (Article 229 of the CCP. Article 155 of the APC). In the Code of Civil Procedure and the Agroindustrial Complex, the expert is not named among the participants in the process, who, after reading the minutes of the court session, can submit their comments to him. However, the expert may petition the court to familiarize himself with the record of questions and answers given to him during interrogation, and, if necessary, to make additions and clarifications to the record of the court hearing. Based on the results of consideration of the observations, the court makes a decision on certifying their correctness or on their rejection (Article 232 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Part 7 of Article 155 of the APC), which is attached to the record of the court hearing.

Earlier, we noted that an expert can be used to assist in the assessment of an expert opinion, who gives explanations on the basis of his special knowledge in writing or orally. These clarifications may include:

1. An indication of the impossibility of solving this issue, for example, due to the lack of an expert methodology. The expert in his opinion could have already indicated this circumstance, but the court seems to be necessary to hear the opinion of another expert. Otherwise, the appointment of a new examination will only delay the proceedings.

2. A reference to the unsuitability of objects for expert research, which is obvious only to a person with special knowledge.

3. An indication of errors in the detection, fixation, seizure of objects that may later become physical evidence.

4. Determination of the type or type of forensic examination, which is directly related to the choice of an expert institution or expert candidate, the definition of his competence in solving the issues raised. Often, judges do not know the intricacies of tribal divisions within various classes of examinations and may appoint, for example, a judicial financial and economic examination and entrust its implementation to an expert of judicial and accounting expertise. But the diversified nature of economics in modern market conditions has led to the selection in the class of forensic economic examinations of several types of examinations. An expert who is competent in solving the problems of forensic accounting may not be proficient in financial and economic expertise.

5. An indication of the materials that must be made available to the expert, such as protocols for inspecting the scene of the incident and certain physical evidence, schemes, plans, documents, etc. According to the procedural legislation, the expert has the right to get acquainted with the case materials, but this right is limited to the subject matter of the examination. The expert should not collect evidence and choose what to investigate, for example, analyze testimony, otherwise there may be doubts about the objectivity and validity of the opinion.

Let us explain this with an example. In a civil case, the system unit of a personal computer from the accounting department of LLC “I” was made available to experts for the production of forensic accounting. The expert in his conclusion indicates that the conclusions were made on the basis of "analysis of 1C-accounting data (the program through which the accounting was kept in the organization)". However, the study of software and databases does not relate to the subject of forensic accounting. For this, a forensic computer technical examination should be appointed:

- software and computer - to determine what software is available on this computer device and whether it works in the normal mode;

- information and computer expertise (data), in the course of which it would be possible to establish which databases are available on the hard disk of the system unit.

The ruling of the court on the appointment of forensic accounting and the materials put at the disposal of experts did not even mention what kind of software was in the system unit, whether it functioned normally. From the conclusion it followed that the experts-accountants themselves discovered this software and analyzed its work. At the same time, databases containing a number of financial statements were identified. In fact, analyzing the contents of the hard disk of the system unit, the experts collected evidence and chose what to investigate and thereby substituted the subject who had appointed the examination. There was no information in the expert opinion on how the system unit was connected, which manipulations were made with it. This is not surprising, since accounting experts do not have the necessary expertise to do this. As a result, doubts about the objectivity and validity of the conclusion led to its exclusion from the evidence. To appoint a forensic computer-technical expertise after the unknown manipulations of expert accountants with the system unit, during which irreversible changes to the information stored in it could occur, the arbitral tribunal considered it inappropriate.

If a specialist is involved by a court for consultation on a forensic examination already carried out1, he considers, in addition to the above issues:

1) the sufficiency of objects and samples for a comparative study to give an opinion, which is determined from the point of view of the used expert techniques;

For example, in the production of forensic food expertise of sausage meat from a boiler, a sample of meat was taken. However, according to the research method, not one sample is to be withdrawn, but an average sample obtained when several samples are taken from different parts of the mass of a substance, which are then mixed and a certain part is taken from this mixture, which is an average sample.

Or another example in the production of a judicial phonoscopic examination in a non-state institution the phonogram of a conversation of several persons with male heads was subjected to research.

Ответы на вопросы для самопроверки пишите в комментариях, мы проверим, или же задавайте свой вопрос по данной теме.