Re-examination

Repeated examination during the trial can be appointed in case of insufficient validity of the conclusion of the previous expert or when the correctness of his conclusions raises certain doubts. When assigning this research to a specialist, the question of the scientific validity of the methods used previously may be raised.

Repeated examination is carried out on the basis of the decision. The document should give reasons for disagreement with the results of previous studies. At the same time, acts of prior research are available to specialists.

Re-examination is often assigned when the source data is provided, which differs from those used previously. If there is no substantiation in the statement of disagreement with the previous study, then a new study is not appointed due to the lack of procedural grounds.

The determination of the groundlessness of the previous conclusion occurs in the process of its study and evaluation. At the same time, the court (investigator) draws attention to certain circumstances. These include, in particular, the degree of competence of a specialist, the correct understanding of the task facing the study, the application of methods that contribute to the quality of study. Equally important is the completeness of the examination, as well as the consistency of the findings with the conclusions drawn.

In the event that at least one condition is violated, the conclusion is recognized as unfounded. In accordance with the same reasons, any other eligible person participating in the process can also claim that the conclusion is unfounded.

As motives on the basis of which there is disagreement with the conclusion of a specialist, there are also information about the personality of the expert, which can raise doubts about his disinterest or competence. Motives are also the dubiousness of the initial data, shortcomings and errors in the formulation of the conclusion, inadequate quality of the study.

As a rule, doubts about the correctness of the conclusion appear when comparing it with other evidence and revealing contradictions between them.

Repeated examination can be appointed in case of revealing significant procedural violations that occurred during the first study. This foundation is provided by law. However, in this case, the identified procedural violations are prescribed to be differentiated. If it is not possible to eliminate them (the investigation was carried out with respect to falsified material evidence) , the expert's conclusion is excluded from the list of evidence and is not examined on the merits. An appointed new examination is considered primary.

It should be noted that in practice and the theory of judicial research, the question of the obligatory appointment of a second study is often raised if it disagrees with the former. Due to the fact that the re-examination has nothing in common with the "check", "control", the purpose of which is to evaluate the first study from the perspective of judicial consideration of evidence, its appointment is not considered mandatory. The appointment of a new study is optional and if you disagree with the findings of a specialist. The decision 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 the study. Along with this, one should also take into account the fact that it is practically impossible to carry out a new study if there is a loss or a significant change in the objects under study.

It should be noted that the examination is not only used in the framework of the judicial process. Often the need for it also arises in other spheres of society. So, non-state expertise, for example, is applied to design, estimate documentation and results of engineering research at various capital construction projects. In turn, the conclusions of experts can be applied and in court. There are also situations when the consumer acquires a product and discovers defects in it. In cases where it is necessary to find out the cause of occurrence of those or other defects of the goods, an independent quality examination is appointed.