[The independence of the forensic physician as an expert witness].

Abstract

Forensic physicians are often called upon by the courts and the public prosecutor's office to give expert opinions and carry out post-mortem examinations, e.g. to determine blood groups or cause of death. The expert is simply aiding the court within the framework of its function of hearing evidence. The court, after considering the evidence, must determine whether an allegation is true or false. Since, for example, the determination of cause of death demands qualified specialized knowledge and a high sense of responsibility, the expert should be both scientifically and personally autonomous in order to preclude wherever possible any conflict of interest. The not-too-distant past has demonstrated that justice, even here, can often be miscarried. This is why the autonomy of the expert is of prime importance. The readjustment to section 87, para. 2, clause 2, StPO may represent an infringement of the principle of autonomy, for in addition to calling on forensic physicians or the heads of forensic or pathology institutes to perform autopsies, as required before the 1975 amendment, these heads are now permitted to delegate their assignments to doctors in their own institutes. In compliance with the decisive trial commentary Loewe-Rosenberg, it should be pointed out that the presence of two pathologists is required by the law, one of whom must be a forensic physician or head of a forensic or pathology institute, and that the court presumes that the participation of delegated doctors will be the exception to the rule.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)