Legislation regarding judicial examination procedures requires forensic experts, article 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code paragraph (1), explains that in the case of an investigator for the purposes of justice regarding a victim who has been injured, poisoned or died allegedly because of an incident which constitutes a criminal act, the judiciary has the authority to submit a request expert information. In medical experts, justice and other experts. Why do you need a forensic doctor? Because it is impossible for investigators, judges, prosecutors to know all the knowledge in the field of medicine which will later be used to deal with criminal cases related to the human body, for example: violence, murder, suicide. With this, the authorities will ask for help from a doctor as an expert witness, the doctor's testimony as an expert witness, the doctor's testimony is regulated by law. In handling murder cases, a forensic autopsy is needed which will provide clear information regarding criminal cases. Accordingly, a forensic autopsy will produce tools that can be used as evidence in deciding a case by a judge. With a forensic autopsy, the cause of a person's death will be known. Therefore, an autopsy is very much needed in the investigation of criminal acts of murder and during the trial process. This research aims to understand the process of proving the criminal act of murder in the Gorontalo District Court with case number 61/PID.B/2023/PN.GTO. and the use of autopsy evidence in the process of proving this research is analyzed normatively, namely research that analyzes the reciprocal relationship between legal facts and social facts which can be seen as independent variables and social facts as dependent variables. murder that was not accompanied by an autopsy.

This research aims to identify and analyze the factors that cause the sense of justice not to be fulfilled in decision Number: 9/Pid.Pra.Pradilan/2018/Pn.Gto at the Class IA Gorontalo District Court. This research is classified as empirical research using descriptive analysis methods. Data was obtained through the study of court decision documents, analysis of legal literature, and interviews with legal experts and judicial practitioners. This research allows researchers to get a comprehensive picture of the issues faced in this case. The results of this research show that several important factors cause a sense of justice to be fulfilled in a judge's decision.

This research aims to determine and analyze empirical juridical analysis of divorce due to domestic violence in the Gorontalo Religious Court and the factors causing divorce due to domestic violence in the Gorontalo Religious Court. This research discusses problems regarding divorce due to domestic violence in the Gorontalo Religious Court. This type of research is empirical juridical research or what is called field research.
The results of this research explain that the empirical juridical analysis of divorce in the Gorontalo Religious Courts is caused by domestic violence, especially violence against wives, caused by various problems that are interrelated and influence each other, causing continuous disputes and quarrels. These problems include: economic conditions, lack of understanding of religion, infidelity, jealousy, drunkenness and gambling, husbands are easily emotional and are caused by the presence of one of the parents on both sides taking part in the household which can lead to a household crisis. In this case, the wife becomes vulnerable to violence because of her unequal position in society and the institution of marriage, both emotionally, socially and emotionally. This research shows that domestic violence is a significant factor in triggering divorce cases filed in the Religious Courts. And the factors that cause divorce due to domestic violence in the Gorontalo Religious Court are the dominant factors that cause divorce due to domestic violence, namely: that there is a lack of religious understanding, behavioral factors, social factors, drunkards and gamblers, disputes or quarrels and other factors. domestic violence.

This research aims to find out and analyze whether the judge's dissenting opinion in case No.0687/Pdt.G/2017/PA.Gtlo regarding the cancellation of this grant provides justice for the parties. The method used in this research is normative juridical with a statutory approach (statute aproach) and a case approach (case aoprouch). The results of this research show that dissenting opinions provide justice for the parties because having a dissenting opinion provides something that is really needed by the parties where the parties feel that their arguments are heard and considered and not set aside by the panel of judges.