Disqualification of an Expert Witness for Reasons that Undermine Confidence in His Knowledge and Impartiality – Reality versus the Legal Norm of Article 196(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Marek Fałdowski; Anna Świerczewska-Gąsiorowska

doi:10.32084/tkp.10210

Strona główna / Publikacje / Disqualification of an Expert Witness for Reasons that Undermine Confidence in His Knowledge and Impartiality – Reality versus the Legal Norm of Article 196(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Zgłoś uwagę

Artykuł

Pobierz plik Pobierz BibTeX

Tytuł

Disqualification of an Expert Witness for Reasons that Undermine Confidence in His Knowledge and Impartiality – Reality versus the Legal Norm of Article 196(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Autorzy

Marek Fałdowski (WBN) ^{[ 1 ][ 6.3 ][ P ]}
Anna Świerczewska-Gąsiorowska

^{[ 1 ]} Wydział Bezpieczeństwa Narodowego, Akademia Sztuki Wojennej | ^{[ P ]} pracownik

Dyscyplina naukowa (Ustawa 2.0)

[6.3] Nauki o bezpieczeństwie

Rok publikacji

2025

Opublikowano w

TEKA Komisji Prawniczej PAN Oddział w Lublinie

Rocznik: 2025 | Tom: Vol. 18 | Numer: No. 2

Typ artykułu

artykuł naukowy

Język publikacji

angielski

Słowa kluczowe

PL

EN

Streszczenie

EN Criminal procedural law doctrine emphasizes that the evaluation of evidence is continuous and also encompasses expert opinions, which, because they are based on specialized knowledge, require verification using objective criteria such as method-ological accuracy, coherence of argument, and compliance with the current state of sci-ence. However, practice shows that procedural authorities often accept expert opinions uncritically, leading to deficiencies and violations of fair trial standards. Of particular significance in this context is the wording of Article 196(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which apodictically requires the appointment of another expert if circum-stances are substantiated that undermine confidence in the expert’s knowledge or im-partiality. Despite the precise wording of the provision, this regulation is often margin-alized, which favors the acceptance of flawed opinions and, consequently, increases the risk of procedural errors that can even lead to wrongful convictions.

Data udostępnienia online

29.12.2025

Strony (od-do)

547 - 559

DOI

10.32084/tkp.10210

URL

https://ojs.academicon.pl/tkppan/article/view/10210

Uwagi

Bibliografia, netografia, wykaz aktów prawnych na stronie 559

Typ licencji

CC BY (uznanie autorstwa)