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-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:34:44.374Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Part V - Standards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules

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. 359 - 426
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

Cook, W. W. (1933). “Substance” and “Procedure” in the Conflict of Laws, Yale Law Journal, 42(3), 333–58.Google Scholar
Felix, R. L. and Whitten, R. U. (2011). American Conflicts Law, 6th ed., Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Garnett, R. (2012). Substance and Procedure in Private International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herzog, P. and Weser, M. (1967). Civil Procedure in France. Dordrecht: Springer Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Illmer, M. (2009). Neutrality Matters—Some Thoughts About the Rome Regulations and the So-Called Dichotomy of Substance and Procedure in European Private International Law, Civil Justice Quarterly, 28, 237–60.Google Scholar
Lowenfeld, A. F. (1997). Introduction: The Elements of Procedure: Are They Separately Portable? The American Journal of Comparative Law, 45(4), 649–55.Google Scholar
Morgan, E. M. (1944). Choice of Law Governing Proof, Harvard Law Review, 58(2), 153–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosteller, R. P. et al., eds. (2020). McCormick on Evidence, vol. 2, 8th ed., St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Murray, P. L. and Stürner, R. (2004). German Civil Justice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nance, D. A. (2016). The Burdens of Proof: Discriminatory Power, Weight of Evidence, and Tenacity of Belief. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nance, D. A. (2021). Choice of Law for Burdens of Proof, North Carolina Journal of International Law, 46, 235–313.Google Scholar
Park, R. C., Orenstein, A. A., and Nance, D. A. (2022). Evidence Law a Student’s Guide to the Law of Evidence as Applied in American Trials, 5th ed., St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Risinger, D. M. (1982). “Substance” and “Procedure” Revisited: With Some Afterthoughts on the Constitutional Problems of Irrebutable Presumptions, UCLA Law Review, 30, 1621–50.Google Scholar
Sedler, R. A. (1962). The Erie Outcome Test as a Guide to Substance and Procedure in the Conflict of Laws, New York University Law Review, 37, 813–80.Google Scholar
Seibl, M. (2017). Burden of Proof, in Encyclopaedia of Private International Law, vol. 1, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Taruffo, M. (2003). Rethinking the Standards of Proof, The American Journal of Comparative Law, 51(3), 659–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tidmarsh, J. (2011). Procedure, Substance, and Erie, Vanderbilt Law Review, 64(3), 877–924.Google Scholar

References

Accatino, D. (2011). Certezas, dudas y propuestas en torno al estándar de la prueba penal, Revista de Derecho de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, 37, 483–511.Google Scholar
Bayón, J. C. (2008). Epistemología, moral y prueba de los hechos. hacia un enfoque no benthamiano, Analisi e Diritto, 2008, 15–34.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1992). Belief and Acceptance, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dei Vecchi, D. (2014). Acerca de la fuerza de los enunciados probatorios. El salto constitutivo, Doxa, 37, 237–61.Google Scholar
Fernández López, M. (2006). La valoración de las pruebas personales y el estándar de la duda razonable, Cuadernos Electrónicos de Filosofía del Derecho, 15.Google Scholar
Ferrer, J. (2006). Los estándares de prueba en el proceso penal español, Cuadernos Electrónicos de Filosofía del Derecho, 15.Google Scholar
González Lagier, D. (2005). Quaestio facti. Ensayos sobre prueba, causalidad y acción. Lima: Editorial Palestra-Temis.Google Scholar
González Lagier, D. (2006). Hechos y conceptos, Cuadernos Electrónicos de Filosofía del Derecho, 15.Google Scholar
González Lagier, D. (2014). Presunción de inocencia, verdad y objetividad, in García Amado, J. A. and Bonorino, P., eds., Prueba y razonamiento probatorio en Derecho, Granada: Comares.Google Scholar
Grimaltos, T. (2009). Creencia, aceptación y conocimiento, Episteme, 29(1), 35–50.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2013). El probabilismo jurídico. Una disensión epistemológica, in Vázquez, C. ed., Estándares de prueba y prueba científica. Ensayos de epistemología jurídica, Barcelona: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (2005). Por qué un estándar de prueba subjetivo y ambiguo no es un estándar, Doxa, 28, 95–113.Google Scholar
Mendonca, D. (1998). Presunciones, Doxa, 21(1), 83–98.Google Scholar
Quine, W. O. (2002). Naturalización de la epistemología, in La relatividad ontológica y otros ensayos, Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar
Taruffo, M. (2002). La prueba de los hechos, Madrid: Trotta. Google Scholar

References

Allen, R. J. and Callen, C. R. (2003). The Juridical Management of Factual Uncertainty. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 7, 1–30.Google Scholar
Anderson, T., Schum, D. and Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of Evidence, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bayón, J. C. (2008). Epistemología, moral y prueba de los hechos: hacia un enfoque no benthamiano. Analisi e diritto, 2008, 15–34.Google Scholar
Bentham, J. (1827). Rationale of Judicial Evidence, 7 vols., J. Stuart Mill, ed. and cited from the edition included in Bentham, J. : The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 11 vols., edited by J. Bowring, , Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 1995.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cited from the reprint of Gregg Revivals, Aldershot, 1991.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. J. (1986). Twelve Questions About Keynes’s Concept of Weight, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 37(3), 263–78.Google Scholar
Cohen, S. (1999).Contextualism, Skepticism, and the Structure of Reasons, in Tomberlin, J. ed., Philosophical Perspectives, Cambridge: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cobreros Mendazona, E. (2012). Los paradójicos efectos de la protección de la presunción de inocencia sobre el sistema indemnizatorio por prisión provisional indebida. (Las sentencias Puig Panella y Tendam del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos), in García, E. de Enterría and Alonso García, R., eds., Administración y Justicia (Un análisis jurisprudencial). Liber Amicorum Tomás-Ramón Fernández, vol. II, Madrid: Civitas.Google Scholar
De Mateo Menéndez, F. (2011). Responsabilidad patrimonial por prisión preventiva indebida: nueva jurisprudencia. Jueces para la Democracia, 70, 80–91.Google Scholar
Díaz Fraile, F. (2017). La presunción de inocencia y la indemnización por prisión preventiva, Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar
Doménech Pascual, G. (2015). ¿Es mejor indemnizar a diez culpables que dejar a un inocente sin compensación? Responsabilidad patrimonial del Estado por los daños causados por la prisión preventiva seguida de absolución o sobreseimiento. InDret, Revista para el análisis del Derecho, 4/2015.Google Scholar
Fantl, J. and McGrath, M. (2002). Evidence, Pragmatics, and Justification, The Philosophical Review, 111(1), 67–94.Google Scholar
Feldman, R. and Conee, E. (1985). Evidentialism, Philosophical Studies, 48(1), 15–34.Google Scholar
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2002). Prueba y verdad en el derecho, Madrid: Marcial Pons, 2nd ed. 2005.Google Scholar
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2007). La valoración racional de la prueba, Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2013). Una concepción minimalista y garantista de la presunción de inocencia, in Martí, J. L. and Moreso, J. J., eds., Contribuciones a la filosofía del derecho. Imperia en Barcelona 2010, Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2014). La prueba de la causalidad en la responsabilidad civil, in Papayannis, D. M., ed., Causalidad y atribución de responsabilidad, Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2017). Presunción de inocencia y prisión preventiva, in Asencio Mellado, J. M. and Alva, J. L. Castillo, eds., Colaboración eficaz, prisión preventiva y prueba, Lima: Ideas-Universitat d’Alacant.Google Scholar
Foley, R. (2000). Epistemically Rational Belief and Responsible Belief, in R. Cobb-Stevens, , ed., Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy, Bowling Green, Ohio: Philosophy Documentation Center, 5, 181–8.Google Scholar
Gascón Abellán, M. (1999). Los hechos en el derecho. Bases argumentales de la prueba, Madrid: Marcial Pons, 3rd ed. 2010.Google Scholar
Guerra Pérez, C. (2010). La decisión judicial de prisión preventiva (Análisis jurídico y criminológico), Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (1993). Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, revised ed. 2001.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The Concept of Law, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2nd ed. 1994.Google Scholar
Hawthorne, J. and Stanley, J. (2008). Knowledge and Action. Journal of Philosophy, 105(10), 571–90.Google Scholar
Hunter, I. (2015). Las dificultades probatorias en el proceso civil. Tratamiento doctrinal y jurisprudencial. Críticas y una propuesta. Revista de Derecho – Universidad Católica del Norte, 22(1), 209–57.Google Scholar
Keynes, J.M. (1921). A Treatise on Probability, London: Macmillan and Co. Cited from the edition of Watchmaker Publishing, 2007.Google Scholar
Laplace, P. S. Marquis de (1814): Essai philosophique sur les probabilités, Paris. Cited from the English translation of Truscott, F. W. and Emory, F. L.: A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, London: John Wiley and Sons, 1902.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (2003). Is Reasonable Doubt Reasonable? Legal Theory, 9(4), 295–331.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (2005). Por qué un estándar de prueba subjetivo y ambiguo no es un estándar. Doxa, 28, 95–113.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (2007). Strange Bedfellows: Inference to the Best Explanation and the Criminal Standard of Proof. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 11(4), 292–306.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (2016). The Law’s Flaws: Rethinking Trial and Errors?, Milton Keynes: College Publications.Google Scholar
Lowey, A. H. (2009). Taking Reasonable Doubt Seriously. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 85(1), 63–75.Google Scholar
Lupária, L. (2017). La presunción de nocencia en la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea. Revista Vasca de Derecho Procesal y Arbitraje, 29(2), 199–214.Google Scholar
Martin Rebollo, L. (2009). Presunción de inocencia y responsabilidad del Estado: una relación ambigua (a propósito de la sentencia TEDH de 25 de abril de 2006), in AA.VV., Derechos fundamentales y otros estudios, en homenaje al prof. Dr Lorenzo Martín-Retortillo, vol. II, Zaragoza: El Justicia de Aragón.Google Scholar
Mendonca, D. (2000). Las claves del derecho, Barcelona: Gedisa.Google Scholar
Nance, D. A. (2016). The Burdens of Proof. Discriminatory Power, Weight of Evidence, and Tenacity of Belief, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ormazábal, G. (2004). La carga de la prueba y sociedad del riesgo, Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A. (2004). Criminal Evidence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. (1994). Strafrecht. Allgemeiner Teil, Band I: Grundlagen. Der Aufbau der Verbrechenslehre. 2. München: Auflage Beck. D. M. Luzón Peña, M. D. García Conlledo and J. de Vicente Remesal (trans.), Derecho Penal. Parte General, Civitas, 2003.Google Scholar
Rysiew, P. (2001). The Context-Sensitivity of Knowledge Attributions, Noûs, 35(4), 477–514.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. (1999). Refocusing the Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: Some Doubt About Reasonable Doubt. Texas Law Review, 78, 105–47.Google Scholar
Stanley, J. (2005). Knowledge and Practical Interest, Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Stein, A. (1997). Against Free Proof, Israel Law Review, 31, 573–89.Google Scholar
Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taruffo, M. (1992). La prova dei fatti giuridici, Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
Tolivar Alas, L. (2009). La adjetivación reductora del error judicial: ¿un fraude de Constitución? Revista Española de Derecho Administrativo, 142, 203–24.Google Scholar
Twining, W. (1990). Rethinking Evidence. Exploratory Essays, cited from the 2nd ed., Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press, 1994.Google Scholar
Ullmann-Margalit, E. (1983). On Presumption. Journal of Philosophy, 80(3), 143–63.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
×