Actual aspects of the expert''s interrogation tactics
It is important for an investigator to know that if an expert's findings are, in fact, of evidentiary significance, it is necessary to neutralize a "potentially dangerous" variety of evidence in the course of a trial. Thus, effective tactics of the interrogation of an expert are sometimes the only method of maintaining the investigator's position. The purpose of the interrogation of an expert is to obtain some clarifications and attachments in relation to his findings. The interrogation of an expert is conducted to clarify, above all, his qualifications and his attitude to the given case; with the purpose of clarifying his findings if in his testimony the expert: -explains the meaning of some special terminology and phrases; justifies the necessity of using the methods, instruments and equipment chosen for his research; -explains how the ascertained diagnostic and identification characteristics enabled him to come to his conclusion; to which degree his conclusions are based on investigative materials; -sets forward his opinion on the reasons why different experts came to conflicting conclusions in case of a commission examination. It is necessary to remember that information available to the expert but not used by him in his findings, can serve as a basis for interrogation. The questions are articulated in the ruling to conduct examinations and are often connected with the unwillingness of an expert to widen the limits of his findings. Unlike the investigator, the expert under interrogation has special knowledge. The fact that the investigator does not have the knowledge which was used by the expert in his findings, which are the subject of the interrogation of an expert, radically changes tactical, structural and psychological constituents of the interrogation of an expert. The expert's interrogation tactics will be more effective if we reveal the main motivation of the expert's behavior in the course of a trial.