Researchers identified three criteria for evaluating a forensic expert's conclusion

A forensic expert’s opinion is a source of evidence that cannot be replaced by any other evidence. And the assessment of its objectivity and validity is the most contentious and debated aspect of the judicial process.

The criteria for evaluating a forensic expert’s opinion in the criminal justice system were examined by chairman of the UNBA Committee on expert support for the practice of law Violleta Fedchyshyna in a joint article with scholar Andriy Fedchyshyn published in the scientific and practical journal «Antiterror and Security Issues» (Baku), Volume 5, No. 1, 2026.

According to the researchers, the key problem lies in the fact that the substantive content of the opinion is evaluated by a court that lacks specialized knowledge. However, it is precisely the court, in evaluating the evidence according to its own conviction, that must correctly assess each piece of evidence. The court cannot assess the extent to which an expert has applied specialized knowledge. According to the authors, only an expert with the same specialization can evaluate the accuracy of the method chosen and the correctness of the research algorithm.

The authors propose classifying the criteria for evaluating an expert opinion according to three principles:

1) the reliability of the scientific research results. The court must verify the correctness of the individual elements comprising the final conclusions, determine whether the conclusion is reliable, and whether it unambiguously answers the questions posed;

2) the extent to which the expert utilizes specialized knowledge. The American Dauber standard is cited as an example, according to which the reliability of evidence must be based on scientific principles;

3) adherence to the subject matter of the investigation. The scope of the subject matter is defined by the questions posed to the expert, and the prerequisite for a reliable evaluation is the completeness and impartiality of the opinion.

According to V. Fedchyshyna and A. Fedchyshyn, the absence of consistent and clear criteria for evaluating an expert’s conclusion leads to the use of pseudoscientific evidence.

In addition, the article draws attention to several gaps. Ukrainian legislation does not specify control measures regarding the competence of an expert’s conclusion. Nor is there a body that would analyze and summarize expert practice by specialization. A comprehensive analysis of judicial practice, taking into account the results of the evaluation of expert conclusions in Ukraine, is also not conducted.

The authors propose introducing advisory guidelines when providing methodological assistance to both courts and experts — with the aim of ensuring consistent approaches to the evaluation of experts’ specialized knowledge.

The full text of the article is available at this link.