LEGAL NATURE AND FUNCTIONAL STATUS OF FORENSIC OBJECTS: PROBLEMS OF ADMISSIBILITY AND ENSURING COGNITIVE OBJECTIVITY

Abstract

The effectiveness of forensic examination as a tool for establishing the truth in criminal proceedings is traditionally viewed through the prism of procedural form and scientific validity. However, modern jurisprudence faces a profound challenge: the lack of a clear differentiation between various types of forensic objects and the absence of mechanisms to protect experts from cognitive biases.
This article aims to analyze the legal nature of forensic objects, specifically distinguishing between primary evidence and auxiliary materials (samples), and to investigate the impact of contextual information on the objectivity of expert findings.
The study employs a systemic-structural approach to classify forensic objects and a comparative-legal method to analyze recent positions of the Supreme Court of Ukraine regarding the legality of obtaining medical documents and other examination objects.
The study categorizes forensic objects into primary objects (physical evidence, documents) and auxiliary objects (comparative samples). It is established that auxiliary objects do not possess independent evidentiary value but serve as a technical and legal condition for verifying the reliability of expert results. The research highlights that the legality of an expert's conclusion is directly correlated with the lawfulness of obtaining the research objects. Special attention is paid to the phenomenon of "information noise" or redundant contextual information provided to the expert. The presence of data irrelevant to the subject of the examination (e.g., information about the suspect's personality or confessions) creates a risk of "expectation bias." This substitutes autonomous scientific analysis with a subjective evaluation based on the general background of the case.
To ensure the autonomy of forensic cognition, it is necessary to implement mechanisms for selective access to criminal case materials. The boundaries of the forensic object must be strictly determined only by data that are epistemically necessary to answer the questions posed. This methodological isolation minimizes the influence of irrelevant signals and guarantees the high reliability of the expert opinion as a source of evidence.