On the Form and Content of a Forensic Handwriting Expert’s Opinion
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-2-51-60
Abstract
The content of a forensic handwriting expert’s opinion has been holding attention of both research scientists and practicing experts for many decades now since it is not only an essential evidence in court often being crucial to deciding on a case but also a document bringing together procedural and scientific methodological elements.
Forensic handwriting examination is much in demand for court, it is also profoundly and comprehensively developed, supported by detailed methodological recommendations on drafting and processing of an expert’s opinion. However, the analysis of experts’ opinions from state forensic institutions as well as from non-state brought to light several shortcomings which do not enhance their evidentiary status. This applies in particular to performing the forensic examination by non-state experts who tend to lack competence. At the same time the number of forensic handwriting examinations assigned by court to the non-state forensic institutions prevails significantly.
The most common mistakes made by the handwriting experts when drafting opinions are reviewed in the article, some ways to resolve them are proposed. The need to provide methodological recommendations for forensic handwriting experts incorporating current requirements to the experts’ opinions is acknowledged.
About the Authors
M. V. ZhizhinaRussian Federation
Zhizhina Marina Vladimirovna – Doctor of Law, Principal Researcher; Professor of the Criminalistics Department
Moscow 125993
I. R. Yagut’yan
Yagut’yan Inna Rubenovna – Head of the Laboratory of Forensic Handwriting Analysis
Moscow 109028
References
1. Petrukhin I.L. Forensic examination as a means of proof in the Soviet criminal proceedings. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura, 1964. 266 p. (In Russ.)
2. Orlov Yu.K. Expert’s opinion and its assessment in criminal cases. Moscow: Yurist, 1995. 64 p. (In Russ.)
3. Shlyakhov A.R. The structure of an expert examination and gnoseological characteristic of forensic expert’s conclusions. The works of All-Union Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Science. Issue 4. Moscow: VNIISE, 1972. P. 3–112. (In Russ.)
4. Smirnova S.A., Usov A.I., Miklyaeva O.V. The framework of expert’s opinion formulation. Moscow: RFCFS, 2015. 236 p. (In Russ.)
5. Orlova V.F. Forensic handwriting examination. General part. Theoretical and methodological framework. 2nd ed. Moscow: Nauka, 2006. 543 p. (In Russ.)
6. Orlova V.F. Forensic handwriting examination. Special part. Examination of small volume handwriting objects. 2nd ed. Moscow: RFCFS, 2011. 538 p. (In Russ.)
7. Forensic handwriting examination. Special part. Еxamination of handwritten texts. 2nd ed. Moscow: Nauka, 2007. 341 p. (In Russ.)
8. Foley R. Examination of digital signature cases involving the UPS DIAD device. Proceedings of the 59th Annual Conference of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners (August 19–21, 2001). Des Moines (IA). Long Beach, CA: American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, 2001.
9. Kruger D.M. The LongPen™ – The World’s First Original Remote Signing Device. Journal of Forensic Sciences. 2010. Vol. 55. Issue 3. P. 795–800. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1556-4029.2010.01348.x
10. Dawson G.A., Lindblom B.S. An Evaluation of Line Quality in Photocopied Signatures. Science & Justice. 1998. Vol. 38. Issue 3. P. 189–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1355-0306(98)72103-3
Review
For citations:
Zhizhina M.V., Yagut’yan I.R. On the Form and Content of a Forensic Handwriting Expert’s Opinion. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2019;14(2):51-60. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2019-14-2-51-60