sudexpertТеория и практика судебной экспертизыTheory and Practice of Forensic Science1819-27852587-7275The Russian Federal Centre of Forensic Science10.30764/1819-2785-2017-12-2-11-17sudexpert-304Research ArticleНА ТЕМУ ДНЯTOPIC OF THE DAYПовышение научной обоснованности методического обеспечения судебной экспертизы – один из важных международных трендовEnhancing the Scientific Validity of Methodological Support in Forensic Science: An Important International Trendhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-0063-5706СмирноваС. А.SmirnovaSvetlana A.

Смирнова Светлана Аркадьевна – заслуженный юрист РФ, д. ю. н., профессор, директор ФБУ РФЦСЭ при Минюсте России, заведующая кафедрой судебно-экспертной деятельности ФГАОУ ВО РУДН.

Москва. 

Smirnova Svetlana Arkad’evna - Distinguished Lawyerof the Russian Federation, Doctor of Law, Full Professor, Director of the RFCFS of the Russian Ministry of Justice, head of the Department of Forensic Science of RUDN University.

Moscow.

info@sudexpert.ruhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-9440-5102УсовА. И.UsovAleksandr I.

Усов Александр Иванович – доктор юридических наук, профессор, заместитель директора ФБУ РФЦСЭ при Минюсте России, профессор кафедры судебно-экспертной деятельности ФГАОУ ВО РУДН, профессор кафедры «юриспруденция, интеллектуальная собственность и судебная экспертиза» МГТУ им. Н.Э. Баумана, член AAFS.

Москва.

Usov Aleksandr Ivanovich - Doctor of Law, Professor, Deputy Director of the RFCFS of the Russian Ministry of Justice, professor of the Department of Forensic Science of RUDN University, professor of the Law, Intellectual Property and Forensics Department, Bauman Moscow State Technical University, member of AAFS.

a.usov@sudexpert.ruФедеральное бюджетное учреждение Российский федеральный центр судебной экспертизы при Министерстве юстиции Российской Федерации; ФГАОУ ВО «Российский университет дружбы народов».РоссияRussian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University).Russian FederationФедеральное бюджетное учреждение Российский федеральный центр судебной экспертизы при Министерстве юстиции Российской Федерации; ФГАОУ ВО «Российский университет дружбы народов»; 3ФГБОУ ВО «Московский государственный технический университет имени Н.Э. Баумана».РоссияRussian Federal Centre of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation; Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University); Bauman Moscow State Technical University (BMSTU).Russian Federation2017300620171221117Copyright © Смирнова С.А., Усов А.И., 20172017Смирнова С.А., Усов А.И.Smirnova S.A., Usov A.I.Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.https://www.tipse.ru/jour/article/view/304

One of the key requirements of modern-day forensic practice is to enforce the principle of scientific validity of applied methods. Current practices show that the issues of scientific validity of forensic methodologies and methodological validation of their application in forensic settings lend themselves to various semantic, operational, and legal interpretations. Drawing from the special report «Forensic Science in the Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods», prepared by the U.S. President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology and the Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69th Annual Scientific Meeting, the authors examine the scope for resolving the most important methodological limitations in the forensic sciences. This includes achieving clarity of scientific standards relating to the validity and reliability of forensic methods, as well as ensuring objective evaluation of specific analytical techniques in terms of their scientific validity and reliability. Conclusions made by foreign scientists are analyzed in terms of their relevance for the future development of the Russian forensic science legislation and harmonization of forensic science collaboration within the Eurasian Economic Union.

судебная экспертизаметодическое обеспечениенаучная обоснованностьсудебно-экспертные ошибкистандартизацияforensic practicemethodological supportscientific validityforensic errorsstandardizationReferencesУсов А.И., Войтов С.А. О возможности проведения валидации методических материалов по производству судебной экспертизы (на примере криминалистической экспертизы звукозаписей) // Теория и практика судебной экспертизы. - 2013. - № 3 (31). - С. 18-23.Usov А.I., Voytov S.A. Scope for validation of forensic investigation methodologies: a case study from audio forensics. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2013. No 3(31). P. 18-23. (In Russ.).Усов А.И. Инновации и прогресс судебно-экспертной деятельности // Право и государство. - 2016. - № 1 (70). - С. 48-52.Usov A.I. Innovations and progress of the forensic activities. Law and State = Pravo i gosudarstvo. 2016. No 1 (70). P. 48-52. (In Russ.).Jones J.P. The Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science Highlights Recent Standards and Baseline Documents for Many Disciplines. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 13-18, 2017). - 2017. - Vol. 23. - P. 526. https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017Proceedings.pdf.Jones J.P. The Organization of Scientific Area Committees (OSAC) for Forensic Science Highlights Recent Standards and Baseline Documents for Many Disciplines. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 13-18, 2017). 2017. Vol. 23. P. 526. URL: https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017Proceedings.pdf.Хазиев Ш.Н., Усов А.И. О докладе Национальной академии наук США «Об укреплении судебно-экспертной науки в США» и его значении для международного судебно-экспертного сообщества // Теория и практика судебной экспертизы. - 2010. - № 2 (18). - С. 196-202.Usov A. I., KhazievSh.N. About the report of National Academy of Sciences of the USA «About Strengthening of a Judicial-Expert Science in the USA». Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2010. No 2 (18). P. 196-202. (In Russ.).Kozinski A. Rejecting Voodoo Science in the Courtroom. The Wall Street Journal. – 19.09.16. https://www.wsj.com/ articles/rejecting-voodoo-science-in-the-courtroom-1474328199?mod=trending now_4Kozinski A. Rejecting Voodoo Science in the Courtroom. The Wall Street Journal. 19.09.16. URL https://www.wsj.com/articles/ rejecting-voodoo-science-in-the-courtroom- 1474328199?mod=trending_now_4.Darvas A.A. Frye, Daubert, or None of the Above: What Rules Govern Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Court? Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 13-18, 2017). 2017. - Vol. 23. - P. 831. https:// www.aafs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017Proceedings.pdf.Darvas A.A. Frye, Daubert, or None of the Above: What Rules Govern Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in Court? Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69 th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 13-18, 2017). 2017. Vol. 23. R 831. URL: https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/ uploads/2017Proceedings.pdf.Carroll M.E., Mohammed L., DomitrovichS., Nuzum W.M., Goudge S., Barristers P.R., et al. Special Sessions: The Evolution of Daubert and Its Effects on the Forensic Sciences. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 13-18, 2017). - 2017. - Vol. 23. - P. 4-6. URL: https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017Proceedings.pdf.Carroll М.Е., Mohammed L., Domitrovich S., Nuzum W.M., Goudge S., Barristers P.R., et al. Special Sessions: The Evolution of Daubert and Its Effects on the Forensic Sciences. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 69th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 13-18, 2017). 2017. Vol. 23. P. 4-6. URL: https://www.aafs.org/wp-content /uploads/2017Proceedings.pdf.Белкин P.C. Курс криминалистики. - M.: Юнити, 2001. - 837 с.Belkin R.S. Course of Criminalistics. Moscow: Yuniti, 2001.837 p. (In Russ.).Судебная экспертиза: типичные ошибки / под ред. Е.Р. Россинской. - Москва: Проспект, 2012. - 544 с.Rossinskaya (ed.). Forensic expertize typical mistakes. Moscow: Prospekt, 2012. 544 p. (In Russ.).Sulner A., Scheck В.С., Findley К.А., Kassin S., Langenburg G., et al. Cognitive Bias Issues in the Forensic Analysis of Pattern and Impression Evidence and in Medicolegal Evaluations. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 67th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 16-21, 2015). - 2015. - Vol 21. - P. 41-42. https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015Proceedings.pdf.Sulner A., Scheck B.C., Findley K.A., Kassin S., Langenburg G., et al. Cognitive Bias Issues in the Forensic Analysis of Pattern and Impression Evidence and in Medicolegal Evaluations. Proceedings of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences 67th Annual Scientific Meeting (New Orleans, LA. February 16-21, 2015). 2015. Vol 21. P. 41-42. URL: https://www.aafs.org/wp-content/ uploads/2015Proceedings.pdf.Смирнова С. А., Омельянюк Г.Г, Усов А. И. Законодательное закрепление инноваций судебно-экспертной деятельности в Российской Федерации // Российский журнал правовых исследований. - 2016. - № 1 (6). - С. 220-227.Smirnova S.A., Omel’janjuk G.G., Usov A. I. Legislative consolidation of the innovations in the forensic activities in the Russian Federation. Russian journal of legal studies. 2016. No 1 (6). P. 220-227.

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.