THE INSTITUTE OF EXPERTISE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS

Abstract

This article comprehensively analyzes the legal nature of the institution of expertise in criminal proceedings, its role in various legal systems, and development trends. In particular, the main differences between the Anglo-Saxon (adversarial expertise) and continental (continental expertise) approaches, their advantages and disadvantages are compared from a scientific point of view. In the course of the study, the system of adversarial expertise existing in countries such as the USA, Great Britain, and the Republic of South Africa, as well as the features of the formal expertise system characteristic of countries such as France, Germany, and the Netherlands, are revealed. The article also analyzes the evolution of the institution of expertise, specifically the increasing role of the court in evaluating expert opinions in Anglo-Saxon systems and reforms aimed at expanding the rights of the parties in continental systems. Special attention is paid to models such as the institution of simultaneous expert hearing (concurrent evidence, hot tubbing) in the Australian experience, as well as plural expertise and controlled expertise in France. Within the framework of the study, the reliability of the expert opinion, the problem of bias, the procedural status of experts, and the difficulties in assessing evidence by the court are studied in depth. It also highlights the priority of the continental system in criminal proceedings in post-Soviet states, including Uzbekistan, and its specific characteristics. The author justifies the necessity of introducing the institution of supervised expertise.