Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica (AUC Iuridica) is a legal journal published since 1955, which presents longer essays as well as short articles on topics relevant for legal theory and international, European and Czech law. It also publishes works concerning current legislative problems.
Although intended primarily for domestic audience, AUC Iuridica is useful also for foreign experts, who can take advantage of summaries in foreign languages (English, German and French) and key words, which are systematically added to the main articles and essays.
The published articles are subject to peer reviews. If necessary, reviewed texts are sent back to the author for revision.
AUC Iuridica accepts contributions from any contributor on any current legal topic.
The journal is registered in the Czech National Bibliography (kept by the National Library of the Czech Republic) and in the Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals (kept by the American Association of Law Libraries).
The journal is archived in Portico.
–––
We are pleased to inform you that the journal Acta Universitatis Carolinae Iuridica was the first journal of the Faculty of Law of Charles University to be included in the prestigious international database SCOPUS. This Elsevier database is the largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature in the world. The editors of the journal expect from the inclusion in the elite SCOPUS database not only an increase in the readership of the journal, but also an increase in interest in the publication of papers by both Czech and foreign authors.
AUC IURIDICA, Vol 69 No 1 (2023), 45–58
Význam požadavku na strukturovaný postup znalce v nové úpravě znalecké činnosti
[An Explanation of the Structured Expert Procedure in the New Regulation of Expert Law in the Czech Republic]
Jiří Závora
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14712/23366478.2023.4
published online: 09. 03. 2023
abstract
The aim of this theoretical study is a hermeneutical interpretation of the meaning of the requirement for a structured expert procedure, especially in relation to the review ability of expert evidence. The study also aims to explain the review ability of expert evidence in relation to the conceptual changes in the new regulation of expert activities in the Czech Republic.
keywords: reviewability; expert procedure; evaluation of expert evidence
references (31)
1. BATESON, G. Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books, 1979.
2. BATESON, G. Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: EP Dutton, 1979.
3. DÖRFL, L. - LEHKÁ, M. - VISINGER, R. - KRYSL, A. Zákon o znalcích: komentář. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2021.
4. DROR, I. E. - HAMPIKIAN, G. Subjectivity and bias in forensic DNA mixture interpretation. Sci Justice. 2011, Vol. 51, No. 4, s. 204-208. CrossRef
5. EDMOND, G. Legal versus Non-Legal Approaches to Forensic Science Evidence. International Journal of Evidence and Proof. 2016, Vol. 20, No. 1, s. 3-28. CrossRef
6. FEYERABEND, K. P. Against method: outline of an archistic theory of knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1970.
7. GATOWSKI, S. a kol. Asking the gatekeepers: a National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in post-Daubertworld. Law and Human Behavior. 2021, Vol. 25, No. 5, s. 433-458. CrossRef
8. IFSPCZ. Postup soudního znalce od 1. 1. 2021. In: YouTube [online]. 2021 [cit. 2021-09-01]. Dostupné na: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwGfsQX12OI.
9. KŘÍSTEK, L. - BÜRGER, P. - VUČKA, J. Zákon o znalcích, znaleckých kancelářích a znaleckých ústavech. Praha: Leges, 2021.
10. MARTINSON, B. C. - ANDERSON, M. S. - DE VRIES, R. Scientists behaving badly. Nature. 2005, Vol. 435, No. 7043, s. 737-738. CrossRef
11. MARTIRE, K. A. - EDMOND, G. Rethinking Expert Opinion Evidence. Melbourne University Law Review. 2017, Vol. 40, s. 967-998.
12. Ministerstvo spravedlnosti. Didaktická pomůcka k nové struktuře znaleckého posudku. In: znalci.justice.cz [online]. [cit. 2022-01-03]. Dostupné na: https://znalci.justice.cz/didakticka-pomucka-k-nove-strukture-znaleckeho-posudku/.
13. MURPHY, E. Inside the cell: the dark side of forensic DNA. New York: Nation Books, 2015.
14. Nález Ústavního soudu ze dne 10. 3. 2015, sp. zn. II. ÚS 2172/14.
15. Nález Ústavního soudu ze dne 30. 4. 2007, sp. zn. III. ÚS 299/2006.
16. National Research Council. Strengthening Forensic Science in The United States: a Path Forward. Washington, D.C: The National Academies Press, 2009.
17. RICHTER, M. - PÚRY, F. Vliv nového znaleckého práva na zjišťování škody v trestním řízení. Bulletin advokacie. 2020, roč. 50, č. 11, s. 20-25.
18. RICHTER, M. - VÍTKOVÁ, K. Vybrané problémy oceňování v reorganizaci v kontextu nového zákona o znalcích. Bulletin advokacie. 2020, roč. 50, č. 12, s. 36-40.
19. RISINGER, D. M. - SAKS, M. J. Rationality, Research and Leviathan: Law Enforcement-Sponsored Research and the Criminal Process. Michigan State DCL Law Review. 2003, Vol. 4, s. 1023-1050.
20. Rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu ze dne 21. 10. 2009, sp. zn. 22 Cdo 1810/2009.
21. Rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu ze dne 22. 1. 2014, sp. zn. 26 Cdo 3928/2013.
22. Rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu ze dne 28. 3. 2018, sp. zn. 32 Cdo 2197/2016.
23. Rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu USA ze dne 23. 3. 1999 ve věci Kumho Tire Co. vs. Carmichael 526 U.S. 137/1999.
24. Rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu USA ze dne 28. 6. 1993 ve věci Dauber vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 509 U.S. 579, 590/1993.
25. Rozhodnutí Nejvyššího soudu USA ze dne 15. 12. 1997 ve věci General Electric vs. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 /1997.
26. SANDERS, J. "Utterly in effective": do courts have a role in improving the quality of forensic expert testimony? Fordham Urban Law Journal. 2010, Vol. 38, No. 2, s. 547-569.
27. SCHECK, B. - NEUFELD, P. - DWYER, J. Actual innocence: when justice goes wrong and how to make it right. New York: Signet, 2001.
28. SMÉKAL, V. Malý úvod do vědecké práce [online rukopis]. Brno: FSS MU, [nedat.], s. 3 [cit. 2021-09-01]. Dostupné na: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:OdCjiANJZyoJ:https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/jaro2004/PSY704/um/Maly_uvod_do_vedecke_prace.pdf+&cd=2&hl=cs&ct=clnk&gl=at&client=firefox-b-d.
29. ŠEVČÍK, P. - ULLRICH, L. Znalecké právo. Praha: C. H. Beck, 2015.
30. The President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods: Report to the President. [Washington, D.C.]: Executive Office of the President, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, 2016.
31. ZÁVORA, J. Příčiny obtížné přezkoumatelnosti znaleckých posudků. Acta Iuridica Olomucensia. 2017, roč. 12, č 1, s. 120−149.
Význam požadavku na strukturovaný postup znalce v nové úpravě znalecké činnosti is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
230 x 157 mm
periodicity: 4 x per year
print price: 65 czk
ISSN: 0323-0619
E-ISSN: 2336-6478
