Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Analysis of rapid DNA test results in mobile and stationary labs highlights legal implications and admissibility issues.
The primary concerns of this paper are to analyze the procedural status of rapid DNA test results obtained in mobile and stationary DNA laboratories. It identifies the benefits and restrictions of such studies and determines whether the results comply with the requirements for adequacy, admissibility, credibility, and sufficiency of evidence. Additionally, it proposes ways to improve the legal regulation concerning the procedural form for applying specific expertise in this area. To achieve this goal, the author employs a range of general scientific and special legal methods, including induction, deduction, analysis, synthesis, comparison, prognostic, comparative legal, and formal logical. The paper explores the procedural status of rapid DNA test results obtained in both mobile and stationary DNA laboratories. The paper discusses the differences between mobile and stationary laboratories, identifies peculiarities in the collection and processing of biosamples, and outlines problematic aspects of admitting such results as evidence. Emphasis is placed on the relevance of utilizing mobile technologies under martial law in Ukraine and the need to improve the legal regulation of their use. The latest legislative changes and case law on evaluating rapid research were also carefully analyzed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Latysh et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: