Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter VIII. The basic features of the Hungarian evidence system • The means of evidence in general
›
8.4. Basic principles of expert evidence
›
8.4.5. Summary findings on expert evidence

8.4.5. Summary findings on expert evidence

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

The use of experts is becoming increasingly common in Hungarian criminal proceedings. On the one hand, this is due to the complexity of the cases and the individual facts, and on the other hand, to the wide range of specialised issues, which have become heterogeneous as a result of technical and scientific progress. According to a 2007 study, “although the experience of criminal proceedings does not clearly support the hypothesis that the rising trend in the use of experts is due to over-evidence and the generalised use of experts without justification, it is a fact that in the last five years experts have been involved in almost 50% of criminal cases, whereas previously, in the first half of the 1990s, this proportion was less than 40%.”1

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In summary, the following conclusions can be drawn from the evaluation of the experts’ opinions:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • their content is to be regarded as merely “partial evidence”,2 and it is therefore wrong to regard expert opinions as superior to other means of proof (this is a general principle deriving from the principle of free evidence and the freedom of judicial discretion);
  • in all cases, unlike witness testimonies, the manner in which knowledge is acquired and the procedural technique used are relevant to the examination;3
  • in order to create terminological consistency, it would be necessary to lay down the following in law:
    1. the expert is an autonomous subject of the proceedings (for this reason, it would have been more appropriate for the CPC to discuss the status of experts in the chapter on “participants in criminal proceedings”);4
    2. an expert opinion is a means of proof;
    3. the content of the expert opinion is evidence;
    4. the relevance of the expert opinion already prepared and submitted is a matter for the courts alone; it may, at most, disregard its findings, but cannot enter into a substantive dispute with the content of the opinion.5
1 Kereszty (2007) ibid. 102.
2 Kereszty ibid. 107.
3 Gyula Molnár (ed.): Az igazságügyi szakértői vizsgálatok kézikönyve. [Handbook of forensic expert examinations.] Budapest, KJK, 1986. 96.
4 Cf. As with the witnesses in this case, I do not agree with the textbook positions that consider the expert as a personal means of evidence.
5 However, detailed reasons for this in the decision must be given.
chevron_left
chevron_right
Tartalomjegyzék navigate_next
Keresés a kiadványban navigate_next
A kereséshez, kérjük, lépj be!
Könyvjelzőim navigate_next
A könyvjelzők használatához
be kell jelentkezned.
Jegyzeteim navigate_next
Jegyzetek létrehozásához
be kell jelentkezned.
    Kiemeléseim navigate_next
    Mutasd a szövegben:
    Szűrés:
    Kiemelések létrehozásához
    MeRSZ+ előfizetés szükséges.
      Útmutató elindítása
      delete
      Kivonat
      fullscreenclose
      printsave