Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T14:52:42.510Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part IV - Expert Evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2022

Edited by
Jordi Ferrer Beltrán  and
Carmen Vázquez
Jordi Ferrer Beltrán
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Carmen Vázquez
Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Get access
Type
Chapter
Information
Evidential Legal Reasoning
Crossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions
 , pp. 215 - 358
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Abel Lluch, X. (2009). La prueba pericial. In Lluch, Abel and Picó i Junoy, eds., La prueba pericial, Barcelona: J. M. Bosch, pp. 15–248.Google Scholar
Allen, R. (2015). A Proposed Evidence Law. Boston University International Law Journal, vol. 33(2), 359–94.Google Scholar
Allen, R. and Miller, J. S. (1993). The Common Law Theory of Experts. Deference or education?. Northwestern University Law Review, 87(4), 1131–47.Google Scholar
Appazov, A. (2016). Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice, Copenhagen: Springer.Google Scholar
Bachmaier, L. (2009). Dos modelos de prueba pericial penal en el derecho comparado: Estados Unidos de Norteamérica y Alemania. Jueces para la democracia, 66, 118–37.Google Scholar
Dror, I. E. (2018). Biases in forensic experts. Science, 2360(6386), 243 ff.Google Scholar
EGLE- European Guide for Legal Expertise. (2015). Guía de buenas prácticas de la pericia judicial civil en la Unión Europea. https://experts-institute.eu/en/projects/the-guide-to-good-practices-in-civil-judicial-expertise-in-the-european-union/Google Scholar
Gross, S. R. (1991). Expert Evidence. Wisconsin Law Review, 1991, 1113–232.Google Scholar
Hooper, L., Cecil, J. and Willging, T. (2001). Neutral Science Panels: Two Examples of Panels of Court-Appointed Experts in the Breast Implants Product Liability Litigation, Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar
Kukucka, J., Kassin, S. M., Zapf, P. and Dror, I. E. (2017). Cognitive Bias and Blindness: A Global Survey of Forensic Science Examiners. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 6, 452–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laguna, M. del P. and Palomo, J. (2008). La prueba pericial económica en el ámbito procesal español, Madrid: Universidad Rey Juan Carlos.Google Scholar
Muñoz Sabaté, L. (2001) Fundamentos de prueba judicial civil, L.E.C 1/2000, Barcelona: J. Ma. Bosch.Google Scholar
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2017). Repensando Daubert: Elementos de convicción que debe tener un buen dictamen pericial. In Picó, J. i Junoy, , ed., Peritaje y prueba pericial, Barcelona: J. M. Bosch.Google Scholar
Orellana, de Castro, R. (2017). Un estudio crítico sobre los diferentes sistemas de designación de peritos y sobre las listas de peritos en la LEC. In Pico, J. i Junoy, ed., Peritaje y prueba pericial, Barcelona: J. M. Bosch.Google Scholar
Pardo, M. S. (2010). Evidence Theory and the NAS Report on Forensic Science. Utah Law Review, 2, 367–83.Google Scholar
Picó i Junoy, J. (2001). La prueba pericial en el proceso civil español, Ley 1/2000 de Enjuiciamiento Civil, Barcelona: Bosch Editor.Google Scholar
Saltzburg, S. A., Martin, M. M. and Capra, D. (2006). Federal Rules of Evidence Manual, 9th ed., vol. 3, San Francisco: Lexis Nexis.Google Scholar
Serra Domínguez, M. (2000). La prueba pericial. In Alonso-Cuevillas, J., ed., Instituciones del nuevo proceso civil. Comentarios sistemáticos a la Ley 1/2000 sobre Enjuiciamiento Civil, Barcelona: Difusión Jurídica.Google Scholar
Taruffo, M. (1996). La prova scientifiche nella recente esperienza statunitense. Rivista Trimestrale Di Diritto e Procedura Civile, 50(1), 219–49.Google Scholar
Vázquez, C. (2015). De la prueba científica a la prueba pericial, Barcelona-Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Vázquez, C. (2016). La prueba pericial en la experiencia estadounidense. Jueces para la democracia, 86, 92–112.Google Scholar
Vázquez, C. (2018). La im/parcialidad pericial y otros conceptos afines. Confiabilidad, desacuerdos y sesgos de los expertos. Isonomía, 48, 69–107.Google Scholar
Wigmore, J. H. (1904). A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, 2nd ed. (1923), Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar

References

Beavan, C. (2001). Fingerprints: The Origins of Crime Detection and the Murder Case that Launched Forensic Science (London: Hyperion).Google Scholar
Campbell, A. (2011). The Fingerprint Inquiry Report (Edinburgh: APS Group).Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2001). Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2004). Grandfathering Evidence: Fingerprint Admissibility Rulings from Jennings to Llera Plaza and Back Again. American Criminal Law Review, 41 (3), 1189–276.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2009). Forensics Without Uniqueness, Conclusions Without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification. Law, Probability, and Risk, 8(3), 233–55.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2014). Individualization Is Dead, Long Live Individualization! Reforms of Reporting Practices for Fingerprint Analysis in the United States. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(2), 117–50.Google Scholar
Cole, S. and Roberts, A. (2012). Certainty, Individualisation and the Subjective Nature of Expert Fingerprint Evidence. Criminal Law Review, 12, 824–49.Google Scholar
Devlin, P. (1979). The Judge, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dror, I. et al. (2006). Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications. Forensic Science International, 156, 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duff, A., Farmer, L., Marshall, S. and Tadros, V., eds. (2004). The Trial on Trial: Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal Trial, Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2015). Forensic Science Evidence and the Conditions for Rational (Jury) Evaluation. Melbourne University Law Review, 39(1), 77–127.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2019). Latent Science: A History of Australian Fingerprint Evidence in Australia. University of Queensland Law Journal, 38(2), 301–65.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2020). Fingerprint Evidence in New Zealand Courts: The Oversight of Overstatement. New Zealand Universities Law Review, 29, 1–29.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. and Cunliffe, E. (2016). Cinderella Story? The Social Production of a Forensic ‘Science’. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106(2), 219–73Google Scholar
Edmond, G. and San Roque, M. (2012). The Cool Crucible: Forensic Science and the Frailty of the Criminal Trial. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 24(1), 51–68.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. et al. (2014). Evidence-Based Forensic Initiative. How to Cross-Examine Forensic Scientists: A Guide for Lawyer. Australian Bar Review, 39, 174–97.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Hamer, D. and Cunliffe, E. (2016). A Little Ignorance Is a Dangerous Thing: Engaging with Exogenous Knowledge Not Adduced by the Parties. Griffith Law Review, 25(3), 383–413.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Martire, K. and San Roque, M. (2017). Expert Reports in the Forensic Sciences. UNSW Law Journal, 40(2), 590–637.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Tangen, J., Searston, R. and Dror, I. (2014). Contextual Bias and Cross-Contamination in the Forensic Sciences: The Implications for Investigations, Plea Bargains, Trials and Appeals. Law, Probability & Risk, 14, 1–25.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Carr, S. and Piasecki, E. (2018). Science Friction: Streamlined Forensic Reporting. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 38(4), 764–792.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E. and Hamer, D. (2020). Fingerprint Comparison and Adversarialism: The Scientific and Historical Evidence. Modern Law Review, 83(6), 1287–327.Google Scholar
Edmond, G., Cunliffe, E., Martire, K. and San Roque, M. (2019). Forensic Science Evidence and the Limits of Cross-Examination. Melbourne University Law Review, 42(3), 858–920.Google Scholar
Evett, I. and Williams, R. (1996). Review of the Sixteen Points Fingerprint Standard in England and Wales. Journal of Forensic Identification, 46, 49.Google Scholar
Groebner, V. (2007). Who Are You? Identification, Deception and Surveillance in Early Modern Europe (New York: Zone).Google Scholar
Gudjonsson, G. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions: A Handbook (Oxford: Wiley).Google Scholar
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Law’s Knowledge: Science for Justice in Legal Settings. American Journal of Public Health, 95(S1), 49–58.Google Scholar
Lander, E. (2017). Response to the ANZFSS council statement on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Report. Australian Journal of Forensic Science, 49, 1.Google Scholar
Law Commission of England and Wales. (2011). Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, 34 Law Commission Report No 325 (HMSO, London).Google Scholar
Leo, R. and Drizin, S. (2004). The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World. North Carolina Law Review, 82, 891.Google Scholar
Lynch, M., Cole, S., McNally, R. and Jordan, K. (2008). Truth Machine: The Contentious History of DNA Evidence (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 237–41.Google Scholar
Morling, T. (1987). Report of the Commissioner the Hon Mr Justice TR Morling: Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Chamberlain Convictions (Canberra: Government Printer).Google Scholar
National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2012). Latent Print Examination and Human Factors: Improving the Practice Through a Systems Approach (US Department of Commerce).Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (National Academies Press), 142–3 (NRC Report).Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods (Report, 20 September 2016).Google Scholar
Roberts, R., Wilmore, C. and Davis, G. (1993). The Role of Forensic Science Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Royal Commission on Criminal Justice Research Study No 11 (London: HMSO).Google Scholar
Runciman, V. (1993). Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (London: HMSO).Google Scholar
Saks, M. and Faigman, D. (2008). Failed Forensics: How Forensic Science Lost Its Way and How It Might Yet Find It. Annual Review of Law & Social Science, 4, 149–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saks, M. and Koehler, J. (2005). The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Identification Science. Science, 309, 892–5.Google Scholar
Sengoopta, C. (2003). Imprint of the Raj: How Fingerprinting Was Born in Colonial India (London: PanMacMillan).Google Scholar
Tangen, J., Thompson, M. and McCarthy, D. (2011). Identifying Fingerprint Expertise. Psychological Science, 22, 995–7.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. (2005). Analyzing the Relevance and Admissibility of Bullet-Lead Evidence: Did the NRC Report Miss the Target? Jurimetrics Journal, 46(1), 65–89.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. et al. (2017). Forensic Science Assessments: A Quality and Gap Analysis – Latent Fingerprint Examination (AAAS) (AAAS Report).Google Scholar
Torpey, J. and Caplan, J. (eds). (2001). Documenting Individual Identity: The Development of State Practices in the Modern World (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
Ulery, B. et al. (2011). Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Fingerprint Decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 773–8.Google Scholar
Ulery, B. et al. (2012). Repeatability and Reproducibility of Decisions by Latent Fingerprint Examiners. PloS One, 7, e32800.Google Scholar
Ulery, B. et al. (2014). Measuring What Latent Fingerprint Examiners Consider Sufficient Information for Individualization Determinations. Plos One, 9, e110179.Google Scholar
United States Department of Justice. (2006). A Review of the FBI’s Handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case (US Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Oversight and Review Division).Google Scholar
Walker, C. and Starmer, K. (eds.). (1999). Miscarriages of Justice: A Review of Justice in Error (London: Blackstone).Google Scholar
White, D. et al. (2014). Passport Officers’ Errors in Face Matching. PLoS ONE, 9(8), 1–6.Google Scholar

References

Allen, R. J. (2013). The Conceptual Challenge of Expert Evidence, Discusiones filosóficas, 14(23), 41–65.Google Scholar
Aitken, C. and Taroni, F. (2004). Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists, 2nd ed., Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Allen, R. J. and Miller, J. S. (1993). The Common Law Theory of Experts: Deference or Education? Northwestern University Law Review, 87, 1131–47.Google Scholar
Balding, D. J. and Bucleton, J. (2009). Interpreting Low Template DNA Profiles, Forensic Science International: Genetics, 4(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Beety, V. E. (2016). Cops in Lab Coats and Forensic in the Courtrooms, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 13(2), 543–65.Google Scholar
Biedermann, A., Vuille, J., Taroni, F. and Champod, C. (2015). The Need for Reporting Standards in Forensic Science, Law, Probability and Risk, 14 (2), 169–73.Google Scholar
Cao, K. and Jain, A. K. (2017). Automated Latent Fingerprints Recognition, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 41(4), 788–800.Google Scholar
Carr, S., Piasecki, E., Tully, G. and Wilson, T. J. (2016). Opening the Scientific Expert’s Black Box, Journal of Criminal Law, 80(5), 364–86.Google Scholar
Carracedo, A. (1999). Valoración de la prueba del ADN, in La prueba del ADN en la medicina forense. La genética al servicio de la ley, Jarreta, B. Martínez ed., Barcelona: Masson.Google Scholar
Champod, C. and Vuille, J. (2011). Scientific Evidence in Europe. Admissibility, Appraisal and Equality of Arms, International Commentary on Evidence, 9 (1), 1–68.Google Scholar
Chin, J. and Workewych, L. (2016). The CSI Effect, Oxford Handbooks Online, DOI 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935352.013.28.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2009). Forensics without Uniqueness, Conclusions without Individualization: The New Epistemology of Forensic Identification, Law, Probability and Risk 8(3), 233–55.Google Scholar
Cole, S. (2012). Forensic Science and Wrongful Convictions: From Exposer, to Contributor to Corrector, New England Law Review, 46, 711–36.Google Scholar
Cole, S. and Dioso-Villa, R. (2009). Investigating the CSI Effect: Media and Litigation Crisis in Criminal Law, Stanford Law Review 61(6), 1335–74.Google Scholar
Cooley, C. and Turvey, B. (2014). Miscarriages of Justice. Actual Evidence, Forensic Evidence and the Law, Oxford: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cunliffe, E. and Edmond, G. (2017). Reviewing Wrongful Convictions in Canada, Criminal Law Quarterly, 64 (3–4), 473–86.Google Scholar
Dror, I. (2016). A Hierarchy of Expert Performance, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 5(2), 121–7.Google Scholar
Dror, I. (2018). Biases in Forensic Experts, Science, 360 (6386), 243.Google Scholar
Dror, I. E., Charlton, D., and Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications, Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–8.Google Scholar
Dror, I. and Rosenthal, R. (2008). Meta-Analytically Quantifying the Reliability and Biasability of Forensic Experts, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 53(4), 900–3.Google Scholar
Dror, I., Thompson, W., Meissner, , Kornfield, I., Krane, D., Saks, M. and Risinger, M. (2015). Context Management Toolboox: A Linear Sequential Unmasquing (LSU) Approach for Minimizing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decision Making, Journal of Forensic Siences, 60(4), 1111–12.Google Scholar
Fabricant, C. and Carrington, W. T. (2016). The Shifted Paradigm: Forensic Sciences‘s Overdue Evolution from Magic to Law, Virginia Journal of Criminal Law, 4(1), 1–115.Google Scholar
Garret, B. L. (2014). Wrongful Convictions and the Role of Forensic Science, in Jamieson, A. and Moenssens, A. eds., Wiley Online Encyclopaedia of Forensic Science, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Garret, B. and Neufeld, P. (2009). Invalid Forensic Science Testimony and Wrongful Convictions, Virginia Law Review, 95 (1), 1–97.Google Scholar
Garret, B. and Mitchell, G. (2013). How Jurors Evaluate Fingerprint Evidence: The Relative Importance of Match Language, Method Information, and Error Acknowledgment, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 10, 484–511.Google Scholar
Gascón, M. (2016). Conocimientos expertos y deferencia del juez. Apuntes para la superación de un problema, DOXA. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, 39, 347–65.Google Scholar
Grace, V., Midgley, G., Veth, J. and Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2011). Forensic DNA Evidence on Trial: Science and Uncertainty in the Courtroom. Litchfield Park, AZ: Emergent Publications.Google Scholar
Guerra Thompson, A. (2015). Cops in Lab Coats. Curbing Wrongful Convictions through Independent Forensic Laboratories, Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2015). The Expert Witness: Lessons from the U.S. Experience, Humana Mente, 28(2015), 39–70.Google Scholar
Huber, P. (1991). Galileo’s Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, New York: New York Basic Books.Google Scholar
Igartua, J. (2007). Prueba científica y decisión judicial: unas anotaciones propedéuticas, Diario La Ley, 6812 (2/11).Google Scholar
Jamieson, A. and Boder, S., eds. (2016). A Guide to Forensic DNA Profiling, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Jiang, N. (2016). Wrongful Convictions in China. Comparative and Empirical Perspectives, Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
Kaye, D. H. (2010). Probability, Individualization and Uniqueness in Forensic Science: Listening to the Academies, Brooklyn Law Review, 75(4), 1163–86.Google Scholar
Koehler, J. (2014). Forensic Fallacies and a Famous Judge, Jurimetrics, 54(3), 211–19.Google Scholar
Koehler, J., Schweitzer, N. J., Saks, M. J. and Macquiston, D. E. (2016). Science, Technology, or the Expert Witness: What Influences Jurors‘ Judgments About Forensic Science Testimony? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 22(4), 401–13.Google Scholar
Kloosterman, A., Sjerps, M. and Quak, A. (2014). Error Rates in Forensic DNA Analysis: Definition, Numbers, Impact and Communication, Forensic Science International: Genetics, 12, 77–85.Google Scholar
Kloostroom, A. (2014). Framework for Registration, Classification and Evaluation of errors in the Forensic DNA Typing Process, Nederlands Forensich Instituut. Available: www.nist.gov/forensics/upload/Kloosterman-DNA.pdf.Google Scholar
Leung, W. C. (2002). The Prosecutor’s Fallacy – A Pitfall in Interpreting Probabilities in Forensic Evidence, Medicine Science and the Law, 42(1), 44–50.Google Scholar
Lucena, J. J., Gascón, M. and Pardo, V. (2015). Technical Support for a Judge when Assessing A Priori Odds, Law, Probability and Risk, 14(2), 147–68.Google Scholar
Martire, K. A. and Edmond, G. (2017). ‘Rethinking Expert Opinion Evidence’, Melbourne University Law Review, 40 (3), 967–98.Google Scholar
Mcquiston-Surrett, D. and Saks, M. J. (2009). The Testimony of Forensic Identification Science: What Expert Witnesses Say and What Facfinders Hear’, Law and Human Behaviour, 33(5), 436–53.Google Scholar
Meester, R., Collins, M., Gill, R., and Van Lambalgen, M. (2006). On the (ab) Use of Statistics in the Legal Case against the nurse Lucia de B. Law, Probability and Risk, 5(3–4), 233–50.Google Scholar
Metzger, P. (2006). Cheating the Constitution, Vanderbilt Law Review, 59(2),475–538.Google Scholar
Mnookin, J. (2010). The Courts, the NAS, and the Future of Forensic Science, Brooklyn Law Review, 75 (4), 1208–75.Google Scholar
Murphy, E. (2015). Inside the Cell: The Dark Side of Forensic DNA, New York: Nation Books.Google Scholar
National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (2009). Report, Strengthening Scientific Evidence in the United States: A Path Forward, Washington DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Office of the Inspector General. US Department of Justice, 2006: Report on Mayfield: A Review of the FBI’s handling of the Brandon Mayfield Case. www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0601/final.pdf.Google Scholar
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), (2016) Report, Forensic Science in Criminal Courts: Ensuring Scientific Validity of Feature-Comparison Methods. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/PCAST/pcast_forensic_science_report_final.pdf.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. (2013). ¿Fue el bebé sacudido? Prueba, pericia y epistemología jurídica en el proceso penal inglés, in Estándares de prueba y prueba científica, C. Vázquez, ed., Madrid: Marcial Pons, 135–80.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. and Redmayne, M., eds. (2007). Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching, Oxford: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. (2005). The Coming Paradigm Shift in Forensic Science, Science 309(5736), 892–5.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. (2008). The Individualization Fallacy in Forensic Science Evidence, Vanderbilt Law Review, 61(1), 199–219.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J. and Koehler, J. (2010). Individualization Claims in Forensic Science: Still Unwarranted, Brooklyn Law Review, 75(4), 1187–208.Google Scholar
Saks, M. J., Albright, T., Bohan, T. L., Bierer, B. E., Bowers, C. M., Bush, M. A. et al. (2016). Forensic Bitemark Identification: Weak Foundations, Exaggerated Claims. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 3(3), 538–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schweitzer, N. J. and Saks, M. J. (2007). The CSI Effect: Popular Fiction About Forensic Science Affects Public Expectations About Real Forensic Science, Jurimetrics 47, 357–64.Google Scholar
Taroni, F., Aitken, C., Garbolino, P. and Biedermann, A. (2006) Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science, Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
The Law Comission (2009) Report The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales. A New Approach to the Determination of Evidentiary Reliability, www.lawcom.gov.uk/expert_evidence.htm.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. (2006). Tarnish on the ‘Gold Standard’: Understanding Recent Problems in Forensic DNA Testing. The Champion, 30(1), 10–16.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. (2009). Letter to the Editor – The Prosecutor’s Fallacy in George Clarke’s. Justice and Science: Trials and Triumphs of DNA Evidence, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 54(2), 504–5.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. and Chumann, E. (1987). Interpretation of Statistical Evidence in Criminal Trials. The Prosecutor’s Fallacy and the Defense Attorney Fallacy, Law and Human Behaviour 11(3), 167–87.Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C., Vuille, J., Taroni, F., Biedermann, A., (2018). After Uniqueness: The Evolution of Forensic Science Opinions, Judicature, 102(1), 18–27.Google Scholar
Twining, W. (2009). De nuevo, los hechos en serio, DOXA, 32, 317–39.Google Scholar
Twining, W. (2013). Moving Beyond Law: Interdisciplinarity and the Study of Evidence’, in Evidence, Inference and Inquiry, Dawid, P., Twinning, W. Vasilaki, M. , eds., British Academy Scholarship Online.Google Scholar
Ulery, B. T. et al. (2011). Accuracy and Reliability of Forensic Latent Fingerprint Decisions, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108 (19). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1018707108.Google Scholar
Vázquez, C. (2015). De la prueba científica a la prueba pericial, Madrid-Barcelona: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Zalman, M. (2018). Wrongful Convictions: Comparative Perspectives. Cambridge Handbook of Social Problems, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 448–80.Google Scholar

References

Arellano, J. (2017). Desafíos de la reforma procesal penal en Chile: análisis retrospectivo a más de una década, Santiago: Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Américas.Google Scholar
Beecher-Monas, E. (2007). Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blume, J. and Helm, R. (2014). The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty. Cornell Law Review, 113, 157–91.Google Scholar
Castillo, I. (2013). Enjuiciando al Proceso Penal Chileno desde el Inocentrismo (algunos apuntes sobre la necesidad de tomarse en serio a los inocentes). Revista Política Criminal, 8(15), 249–313.Google Scholar
Cutler, B. and Zapf, P. (2014). Introduction: The Definition, Breadth, and Importance of Forensic Psychology, in Cutler, B., Zapf, P. (editors in chief), APA Handbook of Forensic Psychology (Vol. 1), Washington: American Psychological Association, xvii–xxii.Google Scholar
Dennis, I. (2010). The Law of Evidence, England: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar
Dirección de Estudios de la Corte Suprema (2017). Peritajes en Chile, Santiago: Corte Suprema.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2010). Admisibilidad de la prueba pericial en juicios orales: un modelo para armar en la jurisprudencia nacional, in Accatino, D, ed., Formación y valoración de la prueba en el proceso penal, Santiago: Abeledo Perrot, 45–86.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2013). La prueba pericial, Buenos Aires: Ediciones Didot.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2015). Algunas lecciones a partir de cuatro casos de condenas de inocentes en Chile. Revista de Derecho Universidad Católica del Norte, 22(1), 149–208.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2016). Los informes en derecho nacional y su inadmisibilidad como prueba a juicio en el proceso penal chileno, Revista de Derecho Universidad Austral, XXIX(1), 297–327.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2017a). Los recursos de revisión y la condena de inocentes en Chile: Una aproximación empírica en el período 2007–2016. Doctrina y Jurisprudencia Penal, 30, 3–40.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2017b). Los reconocimientos oculares: una aproximación empírica a su funcionamiento y algunas recomendaciones para su mejora. Política Criminal, 12(23), 291–379.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2018). Una aproximación empírica al uso y prácticas de la prueba pericial en el proceso penal chileno a la luz de su impacto en los errores del sistema. Política Criminal, 13(25), 42–103.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2011). Actual Innocents? Legal Limitations and Their Implications for Forensic Science and Medicine. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(2–3), 177–212.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2013). Introduction: Expert Evidence in Report and Courts. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(3), 248–62.Google Scholar
Edmond, G. (2015). Forensic Science Evidence and the Conditions for Rational (Jury) Evaluation. Melbourne University Law Review, 39(1), 77–127.Google Scholar
Ferrer, J. (2010). La prueba es libertad, pero no tanto. Una teoría de la prueba cuasi-benthamiana, in Accatino, D., ed., Formación y valoración de la prueba en el proceso penal, Santiago: Abeledo Perrot, 3–19.Google Scholar
Findley, K. (2011–2012). Adversarial Inquisitions: Rethinking the Search for the Truth, New York Law School Law Review, 56, 912–41.Google Scholar
Forst, B. (2013). Wrongful Convictions in a World of Miscarriages of Justice, Huff, R. and Killias, M., eds., Wrongful Conviction and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems, New York: Routledge, 15–43.Google Scholar
Freckelton, I. (2009). Scientific Evidence, in Freckelton, I., and Selby, H., eds., Expert Evidence, 4th ed., Victoria: Thomson Reuters, 1120–36.Google Scholar
Freckelton, I., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Horan, J. and McKimmie, B. (2016). Expert Evidence and Criminal Jury Trials, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee Working Group (2004). Report on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice, Canada: Department of Justice.Google Scholar
FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee (2011). The Path to Justice: Preventing Wrongful Convictions, Canada: FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee.Google Scholar
Garret, B. (2011). Convicting the Innocent, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Garret, B. and Naufeld, P. (2009). Invalid Forensic Testimony and Wrongful Convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1–97.Google Scholar
Gascón, M. (2013). Prueba Científica. Un Mapa de Retos, in Vázquez, C. ed., Estándares de Prueba y Prueba Científica, Madrid: Marcial Pons, 181–202.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, G. (2013). Wrongful Convictions in Switzerland: A Problem of Summary Proceedings. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80(4), 1145–65.Google Scholar
Gold, A. (2003). Expert Evidence in Criminal Law: The Scientific Approach, Canada: Irving Law.Google Scholar
Gould, J., Carrano, J., Leo, R. and Hail Jares, K. (2014). Predicting Erroneous Convictions. Iowa Law Review, 99, 471–522.Google Scholar
Gould, J., Carrano, J, Leo, R. and Hail Jares, K. (2014). Innocent Defendants: Divergent Cases Outcomes and What They Teach Us, in Zalman, M. and Carrano, J., eds., Wrongful Conviction and Criminal Justice Reform, New York: Routledge, 73–89.Google Scholar
Gould, J., Carrano, J, Leo, R. and Young, J. (2013) Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice, USA, National Institute of Justice. Available at: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241389.pdf.Google Scholar
Gould, J. and Leo, R. (2016). The Path to Exoneration, University of San Francisco Law Research Paper, 2016-3.Google Scholar
Gross, S. (2008). Convicting the Innocent. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 173–92.Google Scholar
Gross, S. (2008). Convicting the Innocent, Working Paper no. 103, University of Michigan Law School.Google Scholar
Gross, S., O’Brien, B., Hu, C. and Kennedy, E. H. (2014). Rate of False Convictions of Criminal Defendants Who Are Sentenced to Death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 11(20), 7230–5.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2003). Inquiry and Advocacy, Fallibilism and Finality: Culture and Inference in Science and the Law. Law, Probability and Risk, 2, 205–14.Google Scholar
Harris, D. (2012). Failed Evidence, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Hirshberg, M., (1969). La Sentencia Errónea en el Proceso Penal, Banzhaf, T. trans., Buenos Aires: Ediciones Jurídicas Europa-América.Google Scholar
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2005). Forensic Science on Trial, London: The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar
Huff, R. and Killias, M., eds. (2010). Wrongful Conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Huff, R. and Killias, M., eds. (2013). Wrongful Convictions and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jiahong, H. (2016) Back from the Dead: Criminal Justice and Wrongful Convictions in China, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
King, J. (2013). Beyond Life and Liberty: The Evolving Right to Counsel. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 48, 1–48.Google Scholar
Mauet, T. (2007). Estudios de técnicas de litigación, K. Ventura and L. M., trans., Perú: Jurista Editores.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (2013). The Government’s Response to the Law Commission Report: Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, England: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
Natapoff, A. (2012). Misdemeanors. Southern California Law Review, 85, 101–63.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Naughton, M. (2013). The Innocent and the Criminal Justice System. A Sociological Analysis of Miscarriages of Justice, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Risinger, M. (2007). Innocent Convicted: An Empirically Justified Wrongful Conviction Rate. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97(3), 761–806.Google Scholar
Roach, K. (2009). Forensic Science and Miscarriages of Justice: Some Lessons from a Comparative Perspective. Jurimetrics, 50, 67–92.Google Scholar
Roach, K. (2010). Wrongful Convictions: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Themes, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35 (2), 387–446.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. (2011). Why Misdemeanors Matter: Defining Effective Advocacy in Lower Criminal Courts. University of California Davis Law Review, 45, 277–372.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. (2003). Derecho Procesal Penal, 25th ed., G. Córdoba and D. Pastor, trans., Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto.Google Scholar
Sacks, M. and Spellman, B. (2016). The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. and Spellman, B. (2013). Is Expert Evidence Really Different? Notre Dame Law Review, 89, 1–26.Google Scholar
Simon, D. (2012). In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taruffo, M. (2008). La Prueba, L. Manríquez and J. Ferrer Beltrán (translators), Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
The Law Commission (2009). The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, Consultation Paper no. 190, London: The Law Commission.Google Scholar
The Law Commission (2011). Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, Law Com. No. 325, London: Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. (2015). Addressing Wrongful Convictions: An Examination of Texas´s New Junk Science Writ and Other Measures for Protecting the Innocent, Houston Law Review, 52, 1037–68.Google Scholar
Wells, G., Greathouse, S. and Smalarz, L. (2012). Why Do Motions to Suppress Suggestive Eyewitness Identifications Fail? in Cutlered, B. ed., Conviction of the Innocent, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 167–84.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×