Menelisik Legalitas Ahli untuk Mengundurkan Diri atau Minta Dibebaskan dari Kewajiban Memberikan Keterangan di Persidangan

  • Erwin Susilo Pengadilan Negeri Sigli Kelas IB, Indonesia
  • Muhammad Rafi Pengadilan Negeri Sabang Kelas II, Indonesia
  • Khairul Umam Syamsuyar Pengadilan Negeri Sigli Kelas IB, Indonesia

Abstract

Article 168 of Indonesian Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) confers upon witnesses’ right to decline provide testimony, while Article 170 (1) stipulates that a witness may seek exemption from the obligation to testify. However, these provisions do not extend to experts, despite their frequent application in trials. This study seeks to critically analyze the role of experts in criminal evidence law and their legal standing to either withdraw or request exemption to testify. Employing a normative legal research method, the study reveals the following insights: First, experts are instrumental in elucidating non-legal aspects that are beyond the understanding of judges and parties in court, utilizing their specialized knowledge. However, they should refrain from making final conclusions, as this responsibility lies exclusively with the judge. Second, witnesses are required to provide objective testimony and may face penalties for perjury (pursuant to Article 242 KUHAP, Articles 291, and 373 of Law No. 1 of 2023), whereas experts offer subjective opinions and are not subject to such penalties. Consequently, Article 168 KUHAP is applicable solely to witnesses, while Article 170 KUHAP, through systematic interpretation linked with Article 120 (2) KUHAP, can be extended to encompass both witnesses and experts. The study advocates for the reformulation of Article 170 (1) KUHAP to explicitly include experts as individuals who may seek exemption from the obligation to testify, thereby safeguarding professions that are bound by confidentiality obligations.

References

Asra Rahmad, R. (2019). Hukum Acara Pidana. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers.

Chazawi, A. (2021). Hukum Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Korupsi: Edisi Revisi. Malang: Media Nusa Creative.

Cooke, J. (2012). Expert Evidence: Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Advocacy. UNSW Unisearch. https://civilforensicpsychiatry.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Expert-Evidence.pdf

Epps, J. A., & Todorow, K. (2017). Refryed forensics: Screening expert testimony in criminal cases through Frye plus reliability. Seton Hall L. Rev, 48, 1161–1198. https://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1654&context=shlr

Fauziah Lubis. (2020). Bunga Rampai Hukum Acara Pidana. CV. Manhaji.

Gless, S. (2020). AI in the Courtroom: A Comparative Analysis of Machine Evidence in Criminal Trials. Georgetown Journal of International Law. 51(2).

Golan, T. (2007). Revisiting the history of scientific expert testimony. Brook. L. Rev, 73(3), 879–942. https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1312&context=blr

Grimm, P. W. (2018). Challenges facing judges regarding expert evidence in criminal cases. Fordham Law Review. 86(4).

Haak, S. (2014). Evidence Matters Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law. Cambridge University Press.

Harrison, A. (2019). The Special Criminal Court: Practice and Procedure. Bloomsbury Professional.

Hartley, R. D., Rabe, G. A., & Champion, D. J. (2018). Criminal Courts Structure, Process, and Issues. Pearson.

Kaye, D. H. (2019). The Ultimate Opinion Rule and Forensic Science Identification. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3483226

Klymchuk, M., Marko, S., Priakhin, Y., Stetsyk, B., & Khytra, A. (2021). Evaluation of Forensic Computer and Technical Expertise in Criminal Proceedings. Revista Amazonia Investiga. 10(38). https://doi.org/10.34069/ai/2021.38.02.20

Lamintang, P. A. F., & Lamintang, T. (2013). Pembahasan KUHAP Menurut Ilmu Pengetahuan Hukum Pidana & Yurisprudensi. Jakarta: Sinar Grafika.

Littlejohn, C. (2020). Truth, Knowledge, and The Standard of Proof in Criminal Law. Synthese. 197(12). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1608-4

Mulyadi, L. (2015). Asas Pembalikan Beban Pembuktian Terhadap Tindak Pidana Korupsi dalam Sistem Hukum Pidana Indonesia dihubungkan dengan Konvensi Perserikatan Bangsa-Bangsa Anti Korupsi 2003. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan. 4(1). https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.4.1.2015.101-132

Ohoiwutun, Y. A. T. (2016). Urgensi Bedah Mayat Forensik dalam Pembuktian Tindak Pidana Pembunuhan Berencana. Jurnal Yudisial. 9(1). https://doi.org/10.29123/jy.v9i1.32

Porter, W. R. (2009). Repeating, Yet Evading Review: Admitting Reliable Expert Testimony in Criminal Cases Still Depends Upon Who Is Asking. Rutgers L. Rec. 36(48). 48–70. https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1167&context=pubs

Purwoleksono, D. E. (2015). Hukum Acara Pidana. Airlangga University Press.

Savitri, N. (2020). Pembuktian Dalam Tindak Pidana Kekerasan Seksual Terhadap Anak Kajian. Jurnal Bina Mulia Hukum. 4(2).

Sharpley, D. (2010). Criminal Litigation Practice and Procedure. College of Law Publishing.

Soesilo, R. (2013). Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (KUHP) Serta Komentar-Komentarnya Lengkap Pasal Demi Pasal. Politea.

Sofyan, A., & Asis, A. (2014). Hukum Acara Pidana Suatu Pengantar. Kencana.

Sulistyani, W. (2019). The Admissibility of Scientific Expert Evidence under Indonesian Criminal Justice System. Sriwijaya Law Review. 3(2). https://doi.org/10.28946/slrev.vol3.iss2.215.pp152-161

Published
2024-10-09
Abstract viewed = 0 times
PDF (Bahasa Indonesia) downloaded = 0 times