CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE CONCLUSIONS OF FORENSIC EXPERT INSTITUTIONS AND THEIR SPECIFIC FEATURES

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the procedural nature of a forensic expert’s opinion as evidence in criminal proceedings, the criteria for its assessment, and the theoretical and legal issues arising in law enforcement practice. The study examines the scientific validity, reliability, admissibility, and consistency of an expert opinion with other evidence as key factors determining its significance in the process of proof. The author substantiates that the current criminal procedural legislation does not sufficiently establish a special and differentiated procedure for assessing expert opinions, which leads to divergent approaches in law enforcement practice. The article considers compliance with procedural requirements, determination of the expert’s competence and impartiality, authenticity of the objects of examination and comparative samples, scientific reliability of the applied methodologies, logical consistency, and clarity of the opinion as separate assessment criteria. In addition, the necessity of developing a unified regulatory and methodological approach to the assessment of opinions issued by both state and non-state forensic expert institutions is substantiated. The conclusion notes that the implementation of the proposed criteria in practice will contribute to improving the effectiveness of evidence assessment, preventing procedural errors, and ensuring the quality of justice. The findings of the study are significant in terms of strengthening procedural guarantees for the use of special knowledge in criminal cases, ensuring an objective assessment of the evidentiary value of expert opinions, and establishing unified standards in judicial and investigative practice.