Considering the fact that the verification of evidence remains poorly researched criminal procedural phenomenon and the expert’s opinion is an important mean of establishing the circumstances of criminal proceedings, the purpose of this study is to distinguish and analyze the methods of verifying the expert’s opinion within criminal procedure of Ukraine. The author has supported the provision that the expert’s opinion has no pre-established force, therefore has to be verified and evaluated. The author has analyzed the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, as well as the court practice. As the result of the study, the author has provided, for the first time, all methods of verifying the expert’s opinion available to an investigator, a prosecutor, a suspect, an accused (defendant), the person, who is the subject of compulsory measures of medical or educational character application, their defenders and legal representatives, a victim, his representative and legal representative, the civil plaintiff, his representative and legal representative, a civil defendant and his representative, a representative of the legal entity who is the subject of the proceedings. The following methods of verifying the expert’s opinion within criminal procedure of Ukraine have been distinguished: analysis of adherence to the procedure of appointment of the examination and compliance of the expert’s opinion with the requirements of the criminal procedural legislation; comparison of the expert’s opinion with other evidence, including other experts’ opinions; summoning an expert for questioning to clarify his / her conclusion, when the expert is asked by the prosecution and the defense parties, by the victim, the civil plaintiff, the civil defendant, their representatives and legal representatives, the representative of a legal entity which is the subject of the proceedings, as well as the chairman and the judges, and expert’s answers for the questions; simultaneous questioning of two or more experts; the provision of information by the party of criminal proceedings relating to the expert’s knowledge, skills, qualifications, education and training; the appointment of a duplicative or additional examination, in particular by the court’s own initiative.