The standard of forensic report veracity in criminal proceedings

Abstract

Procedural (relevance and admissibility) and epistemological (due quality of objects, accuracy of source data, approved research methodology was applied) conditions and criteria (epistemological: scientific, methodological and logical substantiation of expert conclusions, procedural: compliance with other case files) that together determine veracity of the expert conclusion are outlined. The Article Purpose is to analyze views of scientists concerning veracity of evidence in general and the expert conclusion in particular; clarify circumstances preceding the expert conclusion and conditioning its accuracy; emphasize epistemological and procedural criteria for this characteristic and compare with the procedure for determining veracity of forensic examination in the countries of the Anglo-Saxon Legal Family and develop a standard based on which veracity of the forensic report can be established by results of performed research. The scientific and methodological substantiation presupposes general and specific substantiation of research results of submitted objects. The logical substantiation is argumentation of the expert’s interim and final conclusions. The criterion for procedural veracity of the forensic report is in its consistency, compliance with other pieces of evidence. It is advisable to use the standard of proof “beyond a reasonable doubt” to determine conformity of the forensic report with objective reality. The standard of forensic report veracity implies that conditions of relevance and admissibility of the forensic report are met, objects submitted for forensic examination are of appropriate quality, expert conclusions are based on general scientific and methodological provisions and results of a particular expert research stemming from them, logically reasoned, conformed with other pieces of evidence in a criminal proceeding and recognized as corresponding to actual circumstances of the offense beyond any reasonable doubt.