Repeated examination during the trialcan be appointed in case of insufficient validity of the conclusion of the previous expert or when the correctness of his conclusions raises certain doubts. When assigning this research to a specialist, the question of the scientific validity of the methods used previously may be raised.
Re-examination is carried out on the basis ofordinances. The document should give reasons for disagreement with the results of previous studies. At the same time, acts of previous research are available to specialists.
Re-examination is often prescribed whensource data are provided that differ from those used previously. If there is no substantiation in the statement of disagreement with the previous study, then a new study is not appointed due to the lack of procedural grounds.
Determining the groundlessness of the previousconclusion occurs in the process of its study and evaluation. In this case, the court (investigator) draws attention to certain circumstances. These include, in particular, the degree of competence of a specialist, the correct understanding of the task facing the study, the application of methods that promote the quality of study. Equally important is the completeness of the examination, as well as the consistency of the findings with the conclusions drawn.
In the event that at least one condition is violated,the conclusion is recognized as unfounded. In accordance with the same reasons, any other eligible person participating in the process can also claim that the conclusion is unfounded.
As motives, on the basis of whichthere is disagreement with the conclusion of a specialist, there are also information about the personality of the expert, which can raise doubts about his disinterest or competence. Motives are also the dubiousness of the initial data, shortcomings and errors in the formulation of the conclusion, inadequate quality of the study.
As a rule, doubts about the correctness of the conclusion appear when comparing it with other evidence and revealing contradictions between them.
Repeated examination may beidentification of significant procedural violations that occurred during the first study. This is provided by law. However, in this case, the identified procedural violations are prescribed to be differentiated. If it is impossible to eliminate them (the investigation was carried out with respect to falsified material evidence), the expert's conclusion is excluded from the list of evidence and is not examined on the merits. An appointed new examination is considered primary.
It should be noted that in practice and theoryForensic research often raises the question of the obligatory appointment of a second study in disagreement with the former. Due to the fact that the re-examination does not have anything in common with the "test", "control", the purpose of which is to evaluate the first study from the standpoint of judicial consideration of evidence, its appointment is not considered mandatory. The appointment of a new study is optional and if you disagree with the findings of a specialist. The decision of this question should be carried out taking into account the presence in the case of other evidence related to the circumstances that are the subject of the study. Along with this, one should also take into account the practical impossibility of carrying out a new study with loss or significant change in the objects under study.
It should be noted that the examination is usednot only in the context of a lawsuit. Often the need for it arises in other spheres of society. For example, non-state expertise, for example, is applied to design, estimate documentation and results of engineering research at various capital construction projects. In turn, the conclusions of specialists can be applied in court. There are also situations when the consumer acquires the goods and discovers defects in it. In cases where it is necessary to find out the cause of occurrence of those or other defects of the goods, an independent quality examination is appointed.