RECONSTRUCTING FORENSIC EXPERT ACTIVITY: INSTITUTIONAL INDEPENDENCE, METHODOLOGICAL VALIDITY AND COMPARATIVE ARCHITECTURES OF EVIDENTIARY RELIABILITY

Abstract

This article advances a doctrinal-comparative reconstruction of forensic expert activity, treating it not as a derivative procedural step but as a sui generis legal institution situated at the intersection of empirical inquiry, procedural form and institutional design. Drawing upon the analytical framework developed by post-Daubert American scholarship, the European Network of Forensic Science Institutes and the Russian doctrinal tradition, the study disaggregates the principle of expert independence into three operational layers — institutional, procedural and methodological — and argues that all three must be guaranteed concurrently if forensic evidence is to discharge its evidentiary function. The paper compares four governance archetypes: the adversarial American model, the centralised Scandinavian and Russian state systems, the hybrid public-private British arrangement, and the networked European model coordinated through ENFSI and ISO/IEC 17025. The analysis demonstrates that declaratory clauses concerning expert independence are insufficient absent operational guarantees and accreditation infrastructure. The article concludes by extracting normative implications for transition jurisdictions seeking to align domestic forensic governance with international standards of reliability.