INFORMATION EXCHANGE OF THE INVESTIGATOR WITH THE EXPERT

The study of aspects of information exchange of a subject of evidence with an expert is motivated by the uniqueness of the expert procedural status, since he, as well as an investigator, takes part in evidence forming – he makes the expert’s conclusions. The conclusion of expert is a complex according to the form and content criminal evidence. The investigator, while learning the facts of criminal event by the investigation of the expert’s conclusions, does not co-operate directly with an object but studies cognitive content which is already expressed. In this case, the analysis of the object takes place, although this analysis is accomplished not by the direct co-operation with the object but by the study of that cognitive content that is already expressed. In this case, a sign system is not the "second reality" that substitutes the "first reality" – the world of real objects – in the process of learning but is just a method of possible cognitive activity of the subject of evidence with the only reality he deals with in the process of cognition – with a real object. But the object in this case comes before the investigator not directly, as a tangible item, trace (as by the view of place of occurrence), but indirectly, through the other persons’ vision. 

The article demolishes points of view according to which the subject of evidence is unable to estimate the scientific validity of the expert’s conclusions. The process of cognition during the expert investigation procedure is complicated enough, and, in addition, it depends on the number of factors and circumstances. As any other evidence, the conclusion of expert should be estimated by an investigator according to its admissibility, relevancy, and reliability and the evidentiary value. The expert’s conclusion admissibility depends on the full accordance to the requirements of article 204 of CPC. The relevancy and reliability of such evidence characterize the research part of the expert’s conclusion and the findings. From the point of view of information exchange, such evaluation of evidence is one of the conditions for creating the identic knowledge of the evidence subject.