Expert Reposition in Criminal Case Investigation: A Comparison with the French Criminal Procedure Law

Abstract

Criminal procedural law is a crucial component of the criminal law system, governing the procedures for enforcing criminal acts, from the investigation, inquiry, prosecution, and trial to the trial itself. Expert testimony plays a crucial role in proving criminal cases. Expert testimony is necessary to provide explanations on matters requiring specialized knowledge or expertise that cannot be directly understood by the judge or the parties in the trial. The 2025 Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) recognizes expert testimony as a form of evidence in criminal proceedings, but does not clearly define the expert's status in the trial process. This research is a normative legal research. It uses a statutory approach, a legal concept approach, and a comparative approach to examine the positive norms governing expert examination in criminal trials. The analysis stage of normative legal research is conducted through a review of collected primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials. This effort to reform criminal procedural law was then realized through the establishment of the 2025 Criminal Procedure Code, which replaced the previous 1981 Criminal Procedure Code. The 2025 Criminal Procedure Code aims to adapt the criminal justice system to developments in information technology and the need for a more modern evidentiary system. In the French legal system, experts are known as expert judiciaires, appointed by judges to provide technical analysis of the facts related to criminal cases. Furthermore, Article 157 of the Code de procedure pénale stipulates that experts appointed by judges must be drawn from the official list of experts registered with the court. Compared to the French legal system, this repositioning still does not fully establish experts as independent parties in the criminal justice process. Therefore, strengthening regulations regarding the mechanism for appointing experts by the court and standards for scientific methodology in providing expert testimony are crucial to improving the objectivity and quality of evidence in the Indonesian criminal justice system.