Use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings

Special knowledge is important in the formation of the evidence base in criminal proceedings. With the help of special knowledge, it is possible to establish facts and reproduce events that cannot always be determined through the testimony of participants in the process or through investigative actions. The use of special knowledge is regulated by law, but in practice there are examples of inappropriate compliance with the procedure for attracting specialists and experts as carriers of special knowledge, assigning and conducting examinations and special studies, and correctly assessing the results obtained. In this connection, the purpose of scientific research is to study the procedural requirements for the use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings and to identify problems that arise in law enforcement practice. The authors used methods of comparative analysis, formal logic and documentary control in the research process. As a result, the authors formed their view on the use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings in order to assist specialists in assessing evidence and their sources at the stage of pre-trial proceedings, presented criteria for analyzing the quality of the use of special knowledge (expert and specialist opinions) and the materials of a criminal case that influence their quality, used in the conclusions of experts and specialists in accordance with the requests of legal practice. The value of the study lies in the fact that the authors proposed independent solutions to overcome problems associated with the use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings.

1. Kodeks Respubliki Kazahstan. Ugolovno-processual'nyj kodeks Respubliki Kazahstan. (s izme nenijami i dopolnenijami po sostojaniju na 12.09.2023 g.) // Kazahstanskaja pravda ot 10.07.2014 No. 133 (27754). (In Russian).

2. Gavlo V.K. (1988) Problemy teorii i praktiki kriminalisticheskoj metodiki rassledovanija / Avtoref. dis. dokt. jurid. nauk: 12.00.09. M. (In Russian).

3. Knjazev A.S. (2011) Takticheskie riski v kriminalistike // Vestnik Omskogo universiteta, ser. Pravo. vyp. 3. (In Russian).

4. Baburin V.V. (2009) Risk kak osnovanie differenciacii ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti / Avtoreferat diss. dokt. jurid. nauk: 12.00.08. Omsk. (In Russian).

5. Garmaev Ju.P., Lubin A.F. (2000) Problemy prestuplenij: teorija i praktika. Monografija. SPb. (In Russian).

6. Baev O.Ja. (2009) Ugolovno-processual'noe issledovanie prestuplenij: problema kachestva prava i pravoprimenenija. Monografija. M. (In Russian).

7. Karagodin V.N., Morozova E.V. (2008) Kriminalisticheskaja problema obnaruzhenija i ustranenija sledstvennyh oshibok. Uchebnoe posobie. Ekaterinburg. (In Russian).

8. Bychkova S.F. (1999) Organizacija naznachenija i proizvodstva sudebnoj jekspertizy. Almaty: ZAO «Zhetі zhargy». (In Russian).

9. Bychkova S.F. (2002) Sudebnaja jekspertiza: nauchnye, organizacionno-pravovye i metodicheskie osnovy. – Almaty: ZAO «Zhetі zhargy». (In Russian).

10. Bychkova S.F., Rehson S.N. (1994) Primenenie obshhih polozhenij metodiki jekspertnogo analiza otdel'nyh vidov prestuplenij dlja formirovanija sistemy special'nyh znanij pri rassledovanii ubijstv // Bjulleten' Gosudarstvennogo sledstvennogo upravlenija i Jekspertno-kriminalisticheskogo upravlenija MVD RK. Almaty, (In Russian).

11. Radzevicius E. (2006) The application of the special knowledge investigating criminal violations of the requirements of the work safety regulations: theory and practice in Lithuania. Summary of Doctoral Thesis. Social Sciences, Law (01 S). Mykolas Romeris University. Vilnius. P. 17. (In English).