AN EXAMPLE OF A PETITION FOR AN APPEAL TO THE MEDICAL EXAMINER’S REPORT
BURSA () CRIMINAL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE;
FILE NO : …/… E.
OBJECTING TO THE CORONER’S REPORT
(DEFENDANT) : (Tc No:12345678901)
defense:
address :
SUBJECT: …/…/… our objections to the Coroner’s report dated
it is presented in Fig.
INSTRUCTIONS :
1-) …/…/… The expert report sent by the Department of Forensic Medicine of Akdeniz University is contrary to the procedure and the law, as follows;
2-) Article 7 of the Code of the Forensic Medicine Institution. according to article; “Forensic Medicine 4. Despite the provision that ”the Specialized Council should consist of 1 chairman, 2 specialists and two specialists for mental health diseases, the specialty is not psychiatry ….. The report given by the Head of Forensic Medicine and the Forensic Medicine Research assistant of the University will be contrary to the procedure and the law.
3-)Although all the statements he has given at the stages so far contradict, the victim with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder has been re-examined with the entire file of the Forensic Medicine Institution 4. we request that it be decided to send it to the Specialized Department. Because it would be contrary to the procedure and the law to issue a judgment based on the report of the Forensic Medicine Specialized Board, which the expert of the subject did not participate in.
4-) For the reasons we have tried to explain above, we object to the report of the Forensic medicine institution in question.
LEGAL REASONS : 5271 P. K. m. 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 2659 P.
m. 7
CONCLUSION AND REQUEST: For the reasons we have tried to explain above, with the acceptance of our objections to the Forensic medicine institution report dated /…//, we request and request that the report review be decided again and include the issues we have stated in our objections. …/…/…
ANNEXES:
1-) The victim … …. ‘s declaration
Defensor of the Accused
An Example of a Supreme Court Decision on an Appeal against a Forensic Medical Report
COURT : … District Court of Justice 11. law office
TYPE OF CASE : Paternity Case
At the end of the procedure of the case between the parties, the judgment given by the legal department of the regional court of justice, the date and number shown above, was appealed by the plaintiff-defendant … in terms of the rejection of the original case, the documents were read and discussed and considered as dec:
The main case concerns the request for the determination of paternity. A DNA report was obtained from the Forensic Medicine Institution and a decision was made to dismiss the case in accordance with the report of the Forensic Medicine Institution dated 09.05.2016 stating that “the BIOLOGICAL PATERNITY of the child was REJECTED for”. Against this decision, the plaintiff … resorted to the appeal law in terms of rejecting the original case, and the district court of justice, which conducted an appeal review, decided to reject the appeal application on the basis of the appeal.
When the file was examined, it was stated that the plaintiff-defendant … requested an appeal against the report of the forensic medicine institution based on the decisiontime, in his appeal, the defendant-plaintiff … may have received a DNA sample from someone else instead of him, and the fact that DNA samples were taken after a very long time may affect the result of the report. While the defendant …, the plaintiff’s mother …, the alleged minor Wormwood Hayat and the father whose bloodline will be arranged by the court … should be referred to give a DNA sample together at the same time and re-reported from the Forensic Medicine Institution, it was not considered correct to establish a verdict by making do with this report without satisfying the objections made against the expert report, so the decision had to be overturned.
CONCLUSION: It was unanimously decided that the decision of the district court of justice appealed for the reason shown above should be OVERTURNED, that the advance fee of the appeal should be returned to the depositor upon request, and that the file should be sent to the relevant district court of justice’s legal department. 16.12.2021 (Prs.)
