Access to Expert Opinions for the Accused and Defense Counsel in Russian Criminal Proceedings: Gaps in Law and Judicial Practice Conflicts

Russian criminal procedure law does not explicitly require investigators to promptly disclose expert opinions to the suspect (accused) and their defense counsel upon receipt. At the same time, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation lacks provisions allowing restrictions on the defense’s right to access such expert opinions. Both the defense and the prosecution may abuse their rights. The author argues that any restriction on the right of the accused to access an expert opinion should be permissible only by court order under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. It is also necessary to provide guarantees to the defense to become familiar with the expert’s opinion as part of the preliminary investigation. The paper proposes amending Article 206 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by introducing a new Part 3, which would permit restricting the accused and his defense attorney’s access to expert opinion solely by judicial authorization. The said court decision could set a specific timeframe for familiarization with the expert’s opinion, provided justified grounds exist.

1. Anesheva A. T. Pravovoe regulirovanie protsedury oznakomleniya s postanovleniem o naznachenii sudebnoy ekspertizy i zaklyucheniem eksperta nuzhdaetsya v sovershenstvovanii // Rossiyskiy sudya. — 2020. — № 8. — S. 42–46.

2. Belokovylskiy M. S. Uchastie advokata v proverke i otsenke dopustimosti zaklyucheniya eksperta v ugolovnom protsesse: analiz soblyudeniya trebovaniy zakona v stadii naznacheniya sudebnoy ekspertizy // Advokat. — 2008. — № 10. — S. 44–50.

3. Baev O. Ya., Baev M. O. UPK RF 2001 g.: dostizheniya, lakuny, kollizii; vozmozhnye puti zapolneniya i razresheniya poslednikh: uchebnoe posobie. — Voronezh, 2002. — 57 s.

4. Gorskiy V. V., Gorskiy M. V. Problemy primeneniya advokatom spetsialnykh znaniy v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Ekspert-kriminalist. — 2015. — № 3. — S. 6–9.

5. Epikhin A. Yu. Problemy novogo apellyatsionnogo poryadka sudebnogo kontrolya po ugolovnym delam // Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. — 2013. — Vyp. 4. — S. 127–131.

6. Ershova G. V., Parfenov Yu. A., Sapozhnikov K. V. Sudebno-meditsinskaya ekspertiza otsenki tyazhesti vreda zdorovyu v sovremennom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve // Rossiyskiy sledovatel. — 2019. — № 11. — S. 26–30.

7. Kovtun N. N. Sudebnyy kontrol v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve Rossii: ponyatie, sushchnost, formy: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — N. Novgorod, 2002. — 520 s.

8. Lazareva V., Lapuzin A. Neoznakomlenie zashchitnika s postanovleniem o naznachenii ekspertizy kak osnovanie priznaniya zaklyucheniya eksperta nedopustimym dokazatelstvom // Ugolovnoe pravo. — 2009. — № 1. — S. 99–104.

9. Lukyanov S. S. Problemnye voprosy opredeleniya kompetentsii suda po prinyatiyu protsessualnykh resheniy pri osushchestvlenii sudebnogo kontrolya na dosudebnykh stadiyakh ugolovnogo protsessa // Rossiyskiy sledovatel. — 2024. — № 5. — S. 17–22.

10. Muratova N. G. Sistema sudebnogo kontrolya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: voprosy teorii, zakonodatelnogo regulirovaniya i praktiki: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — Ekaterinburg, 2004. — 600 s.

11. Nagornaya M. Advokat dobilsya oznakomleniya s zaklyucheniem ekspertizy po ugolovnomu delu v otnoshenii ego doveritelya // Advokatskaya gazeta. — 2010. — 10 iyunya.

12. Polyanova Zh. A. Prava i obyazannosti podozrevaemogo, obvinyaemogo, poterpevshego, svidetelya pri proizvodstve sudebnoy ekspertizy: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 2005. — 219 s.

13. Chebotareva I. N. Problemy realizatsii zashchitnikom prav po uchastiyu v proizvodstve sudebnoy ekspertizy // Advokatskaya praktika. — 2012. — № 4. — S. 4–6.

14. Shestak V. A. Podderzhanie voennymi prokurorami gosudarstvennogo obvineniya po ugolovnym delam, rassmatrivaemym garnizonnymi voennymi sudami s uchastiem prisyazhnykh zasedateley // Rossiyskiy sledovatel. — 2017. — № 16. — S. 19–23.