Abstrakt
Mazkur maqolada anglo-sakson huquq oilasiga mansub bo‘lgan davlatlar, xususan, Amerika Qoʻshma Shtatlari, Buyuk Britaniya, Avstraliya va Irlandiya jinoyat protsessida ekspert xulosasiga oid normalar milliy qonunchiligimiz bilan qiyosiylangan holda tadqiq qilingan. Xususan, anglo-sakson huquq oilasiga mansub bo‘lgan davlatlarda ekspert xulosasining daliliy ahamiyati, uning isbot qilishda tutgan o‘rni, ekspert xulosasini baholash mezonlari hamda ekspert xulosasiga qo‘shilmagan holda qaror qabul qilishning huquqiy oqibatlari kabi masalalar qonunchilik normalari va xorijiy olimlarning ilmiy qarashlari misolida o‘rganilgan. Amalga oshirilgan tadqiqot natijalariga ko‘ra ilmiy-nazariy xulosalar chiqarilib, milliy qonunchiligimizni takomillashtirishga qaratilgan takliflar, xususan Oʻzbekiston Respublikasi Jinoyat-protsessual kodeksining 187-moddasini ekspert xulosasidagi sud tomonidan nomaqbul deb topilgan dalillarga asoslangan xulosalar ham nomaqbul hisoblanishi va bunday xulosalardan dalil sifatida foydalanish taqiqlanishini nazarda tutuvchi yangi norma bilan toʻldirish taklif etilgan.
Библиографические ссылки
Criminal Justice Act 1988. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/section/30
The Code of Alabama. Section 12-21-300 Offering of certificate of analysis in lieu of testimony. Alabama Legislature. https://alison.legislature.state.al.us/code-of-alabama
Pennsylvania Code. 234 Pa. Code Rule 574. Forensic Laboratory Report; Certification in Lieu of Expert Testimony. https://www.pacodeandbulletin.gov/Display/pacode?file=/secure/pacode/data/234/chapter5/s574.html&d=reduce
The Code of Virginia. § 19.2-187. Admission into evidence of certain certificates of analysis. Virginia Law Library. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title19.2/chapter12/section19.2-187/
2022 Alaska Statutes. Title 12. Code of Criminal Procedure. Chapter 45. Trial, Evidence, Compromise. Article 2. Discovery, Testimony, and Evidence. Justia Legal Resources. https://law.justia.com/codes/alaska/2022/title-12/chapter-45/article-2/section-12-45-084/#:~:text=The%20author%20shall%20state%20that,the%20custody%20of%20the%20laboratory.
United States v. Oates. United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. 560 F.2d 45 (1977). https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-states-v-oates
Constitution of the United States: Analysis and Interpretation. Sixth Amendment—Rights in Criminal Prosecution. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/amendment-6/
Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (2009). https://www.quimbee.com/cases/melendez-diaz-v-massachusetts
Guidance on expert evidence / Crown Prosecution Service. 2014. P. 6-7.
British Medical Association expert witness guidance. 2007. URL: http://bma.org.uk
Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, PART XII. Routine evidence. Section 280 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/46/section/280
Mueller C.B., Kirkpatrick L.C. Evidence. – 5th ed. – New York: Wolters Kluwer, 2012. P. 677.
Weissenberger, Glen. Federal Rules of Evidence: Rules, Legislative History, Commentary, and Authority. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis, 2007. APA. 78 p.
Murphy P. Murphy on evidence (7th ed.) – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. 670 p.
Kampen P.T.C. Expert evidence compared // Complex cases: perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system / Ed. by M. Malsch, J.F. Nijboer. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis, 1999. P. 99-121.
Federal Rules of Evidence Rule. Rule 401. Test for Relevant Evidence. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_401
Puch-Solis, R., Robertson, P., Pope, S., & Aitken, C. (2012). Assessing the probative value of DNA evidence: Guidance for judges, lawyers, forensic scientists and expert witnesses. (Communicating and Interpreting Statistical Evidence in the Administration of Criminal Justice). Royal Statistical Society. https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/publications/our-research/
Expert evidence in criminal proceedings in England and Wales. (2011). United Kingdom: Stationery Office. 222 p.
Arenson, Kenneth J. (2011) Rejection of the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine in Australia: a retreat from progressivism. University of Notre Dame Australia Law Review. 13 (December 2011): 17–68.
"Evidence that has been collected unlawfully" https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/evidence/unlawfully_obtained_evidence.html
Fridman, D. S., and Janoe, J. S. (1997). The state of judicial gatekeeping in New Jersey, The Judicial Gatekeeping Project, Teaneck, N.J. https://cyber.harvard.edu/daubert/nj.htm
Groscup J.L., Penrod S.D. Battle of the standards for experts in criminal cases: police vs. psychologists // Seton Hall Law Review. 2003. Vol. 33. Is. 4. P. 1141-1165.