Viktor Bérces: Evidence in Criminal Proceedings
›
Chapter XI. Evidence in court proceedings
›
11.8. Evidence in the course of first instance proceedings
›
11.8.3. Peculiarities of expert evidence at first instance

11.8.3. Peculiarities of expert evidence at first instance

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

In judicial practice, expert opinion is clearly the most reliable and objective means of proof, and therefore courts usually make a special effort to support their decisions with this means of proof.1 The essence of expert evidence is that the court makes use of the results of scientific and technical advancement presented by them to compensate for or supplement its lack of expertise, thereby helping to identify the relevant facts and to assess them properly. It is, of course, still within the jurisdiction of the court to:

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

  • establish which facts relevant to the resolution of the dispute require proof;
  • determinewhich facts require special expertise to ascertain or assess, or
  • decide which pieces of general education, general life experience and general knowledge are sufficient to consider or judge.
 

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

Practical experience shows that it is rare for courts to take a position – “arbitrarily” – on a technical issue, and it is more commonfor them to appoint an expert at trial without any justification.2 At the same time, the fact that the court is obliged by law to obtain an expert opinion does not exempt it from establishing the facts (also on technical issues). Therefore, and somewhat paradoxically, the assessment of the expert opinion must also be carried out by the court which does not otherwise have special expertise.

Jegyzet elhelyezéséhez, kérjük, lépj be.!

I would like to note that the judicial practice prefers expert opinions that are categorical or issued with “probability bordering on certainty”, because (1) the prosecutor, the accused, the defence and the victim basically accept the clear, categorical expert opinion (in the absence of which they propose to supplement the expert opinion or to appoint a new expert); (2) the probability that the court of second instance will evaluate the expert opinion differently in light of the other evidence is lower. However, it can be noted that in practice, expert opinions tend to operate with the concept of “strongest likelihood”, as it is not even possible to give an expert opinion, either categorical or bordering on certainty, on a large number of technical issues. 3
1 Az ítéleti bizonyosság elméleti és gyakorlati kérdései. [Theoretical and practical issues of certainty of judgement.] Summary Opinion (2017) ibid. 100.
2 Az ítéleti bizonyosság elméleti és gyakorlati kérdései. [Theoretical and practical issues of certainty of judgement.] Summary opinion ibid. 101.
3 This could be the cause of disease in humans or livestock, or the failure of technical equipment. In. Summary Opinion ibid. 101.
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