Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal Trial
In contemporary legal epistemology it is common to talk about the “paradox of expert testimony”, which can be formulated as follows: “how can the judge assess information provided by an expert witness if he needs him precisely because of his own lack of adequate specialist knowledge?”. The goal of t...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura Jurídica
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | Quaestio Facti |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/22366 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850166313169715200 |
|---|---|
| author | Gaetano Carlizzi |
| author_facet | Gaetano Carlizzi |
| author_sort | Gaetano Carlizzi |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In contemporary legal epistemology it is common to talk about the “paradox of expert testimony”, which can be formulated as follows: “how can the judge assess information provided by an expert witness if he needs him precisely because of his own lack of adequate specialist knowledge?”. The goal of the paper is to show that this paradox is only apparent. To pursue it I first of all review the history of the ideas of free evaluation of evidence and proof beyond any reasonable doubt in the civil law and common law traditions, in order to address the theoretical problem of their nature in contemporary law systems. Then I propose a taxonomy of the judicial approaches to the role of experts at trial, concluding that none of these approaches, except one (“the gatekeeper judge”), is consistent with both above-mentioned principles. Lastly, I look in depth at the gatekeeper judge approach, showing that a real assessment of expert information is possible, so that the paradox of expert testimony depends only on a faulty understanding of both activities. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-e0697bcbed1345ecba9b606889c5edf3 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2660-4515 2604-6202 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2020-01-01 |
| publisher | Universitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura Jurídica |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Quaestio Facti |
| spelling | doaj-art-e0697bcbed1345ecba9b606889c5edf32025-08-20T02:21:29ZengUniversitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura JurídicaQuaestio Facti2660-45152604-62022020-01-01110.33115/udg_bib/qf.i0.2236622355Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal TrialGaetano Carlizzi0Tribunale Militare di RomaIn contemporary legal epistemology it is common to talk about the “paradox of expert testimony”, which can be formulated as follows: “how can the judge assess information provided by an expert witness if he needs him precisely because of his own lack of adequate specialist knowledge?”. The goal of the paper is to show that this paradox is only apparent. To pursue it I first of all review the history of the ideas of free evaluation of evidence and proof beyond any reasonable doubt in the civil law and common law traditions, in order to address the theoretical problem of their nature in contemporary law systems. Then I propose a taxonomy of the judicial approaches to the role of experts at trial, concluding that none of these approaches, except one (“the gatekeeper judge”), is consistent with both above-mentioned principles. Lastly, I look in depth at the gatekeeper judge approach, showing that a real assessment of expert information is possible, so that the paradox of expert testimony depends only on a faulty understanding of both activities.https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/22366question of factfree evaluation of evidenceproof beyond any reasonable doubtexpert testimonyscientific evidence |
| spellingShingle | Gaetano Carlizzi Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal Trial Quaestio Facti question of fact free evaluation of evidence proof beyond any reasonable doubt expert testimony scientific evidence |
| title | Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal Trial |
| title_full | Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal Trial |
| title_fullStr | Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal Trial |
| title_full_unstemmed | Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal Trial |
| title_short | Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal Trial |
| title_sort | scientific questions of fact between free evaluation of evidence and proof beyond any reasonable doubt in the criminal trial |
| topic | question of fact free evaluation of evidence proof beyond any reasonable doubt expert testimony scientific evidence |
| url | https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/22366 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT gaetanocarlizzi scientificquestionsoffactbetweenfreeevaluationofevidenceandproofbeyondanyreasonabledoubtinthecriminaltrial |