Re-examination during the trial may be imposed in case of insufficient rationale for the conclusion of the previous expert or when the accuracy of its findings is questionable.In the appointment of the study, the specialist may raise the question of the scientific validity of previously used methods.
Re-examination is carried out on the basis of the decision.The document must be given reasons for disagreeing with the results of previous studies.At the same time at the disposal of experts provided the acts of previous studies.
Re-examination is often administered when the available raw data, which are different from those used previously.If the statement of disagreement with the previous study no justification, the new study is not assigned in the absence of procedural grounds.
Determination unfounded previous conclusion occurs in the course of its investigation and assessment.The court (the investigator) draws attention to the specific circumstances.These include, in particular, the degree of competence of the expert, the correct understanding of the problem facing the study, the use of methods that promote quality learning.Also important is the completeness of the examination as well as relevant outcomes of the conclusions reached.
If violated at least one condition, the conclusion is unfounded.In accordance with these same reasons as groundless conclusion can claim any other authorized person involved in the process.
as the reasons on the basis of which manifested disagreement with the conclusion of the expert, and advocate the identity of the expert, which could cause doubts about his lack of interest or competence.The motives also appear dubious source data shortcomings and errors in the design of detention, inadequate quality of research.
Usually doubts about the findings appear when comparing it with other evidence and identify their differences.
Re-examination may be appointed in the identification of significant procedural violations that occurred during the implementation of the first study.This base is provided by the legislation.However, in this case, to the identified procedural violations prescribed differentiated approach.If you can not eliminate them (the study was carried out with respect to fraudulent physical evidence) expert judgment is excluded from the list of evidence and is not considered on the merits.Appointed as the new expertise is considered to be primary.
should be noted that in the practice and theory of the judicial investigation often raises the issue of the mandatory appointment of a second study in case of disagreement with the first.Due to the fact that re-examination has nothing to do with the "test", "control", which aims - the first study to evaluate the position of judicial review of the evidence, the purpose of it is not considered mandatory.Appointment of the new study is optional and in case of disagreement with the conclusions of the expert.The solution of this issue should take into account the availability of other evidence in the case relating to the circumstances that are the subject of study.At the same time it should take into account the presence of the practical impossibility of carrying out a new study in the loss of any material change in the objects of study.
It should be noted that the examination is not only used as part of the trial.Often the need for it arises in other areas of society.Thus, non-governmental expertise, for example, is used with respect to the design, construction documents and engineering studies on various objects of capital construction.In turn, the conclusions of experts can be used in court.There are also situations where the consumer purchases goods and reveals flaws in it.In cases where you need to find out the cause of these or other defects of the goods, shall be appointed an independent examination of the quality.
