Re-examination during the trial may be appointed in case of insufficient validity of the conclusion of the previous expert or when the correctness of its conclusions raises certain doubts. When assigning this study to a specialist, the question may be raised about the scientific validity of the methods used previously.
Repeated examination is carried out on the basis of the decision. The document should provide reasons for disagreeing with the results of previous studies. At the same time, acts of previous studies are made available to specialists.
Re-examination is often appointed when the source data is provided, which differ from those previously used. If there is no justification in the statement of disagreement with the previous study, then a new study is not appointed due to the lack of procedural grounds.
Determination of the groundlessness of the previous conclusion 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, a correct understanding of the task facing the study, and the use of methods that contribute to ensuring the quality of study. Equally important is the completeness of the examination, as well as the consistency of the conclusions made.
If at least one condition is violated, the conclusion shall be deemed unreasonable. In accordance with the same reasons, any other eligible person participating in the process may declare the unfounded conclusion.
As motives, on the basis of which there is disagreement with the expert’s opinion, there are also information about the personality of the expert, which may raise doubts about his disinterest or competence. The motivations are also the doubtfulness of the initial data, shortcomings and errors in drawing up a conclusion, and the inadequate quality of the study.
As a rule, doubts about the correctness of the conclusion appear when comparing it with other evidence and identifying contradictions between them.
Repeated examination can be appointed in case of revealing significant procedural violations that occurred during the first study. This basis is provided by law. However, in this case, it is prescribed to approach the identified procedural violations differentially. If it is impossible to eliminate them (the study was carried out with respect to falsified material evidence) , the expert’s opinion is excluded from the list of evidence and is not considered on the merits. The appointed new examination is considered primary.
It should be noted that in the practice and theory of forensic research, the question often arises of the mandatory appointment of a second investigation in disagreement with the first. Due to the fact that the repeated examination has nothing to do with the “verification”, “control”, the purpose of which is to evaluate the first study from the position of judicial review of evidence, its appointment is not considered mandatory. The appointment of a new study is optional and in disagreement with the conclusions of the specialist. The solution of this issue should be carried out taking into account the presence in the case of other evidence related to the circumstances that are the subject of study. Along with this, one should take into account the practical impossibility of conducting a new study in case of loss or significant change in the studied objects.
It should be noted that the examination is used not only in the framework of the trial. Often the need for it arises in other areas of society. So, non-state examination, for example, is applied with respect to design, budget documentation and the results of engineering studies at various capital construction facilities. In turn, expert opinions can be applied in court. There are also situations where a consumer purchases a product and finds flaws in it. In cases where it is necessary to find out the cause of the appearance of certain defects of the goods, an independent quality examination is appointed.