Bibliography

Douglas Walton

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511619533.009

Frederick Adams, “Information Theory”, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, ed. Audi, Robert, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, 435--437.Google Scholar

Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Legal Argumentation, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Ronald, J. Allen and Leiter, Brian, “Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence”, Virginia Law Review, 87, 2001, 1491–1550.Google Scholar

Anderson, Barrie and Anderson, Dawn, Manufacturing Guilt: Wrongful Convictions in Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Fernwood Publishing, 1998.Google Scholar

Anderson, Terence, Schum, David, and Twining, William, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anderson, Terence and Twining, William, Analysis of Evidence: How to Do Things with Facts Based on Wigmore's Science of Judicial Proof, Boston, Little Brown, 1991.Google Scholar

Aqvist, Lennart, A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Interrogatives, Uppsala, Filosofiska Studier, 1965.Google Scholar

Armstrong, Ken and Possley, Maurice, “The Verdict: Dishonor”, Chicago Tribune, January 10, 1999, page 1 and page 12.Google Scholar

Lawyer, Army, “The Art of Trial Advocacy: An Approach to Cross-Examination”, Army Law, 80, 1998, 1–6.Google Scholar

Atkinson, Katie, What Should We Do? Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning, Ph.D. thesis, Liverpool, University of Liverpool, 2005.Google Scholar

Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Peter McBurney, “A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-agent Argument over Proposals for Action”, Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems, ed. Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P., and Reed, C., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004, 149–61.Google Scholar

Atkinson, Katie, Bench-Capon, Trevor and McBurney, Peter, ‘Computational Representation of Practical Argument’, Synthese, 152, 2006, 157–206.Google Scholar

Audi, Robert, Practical Reasoning, London, Routledge, 1989.Google Scholar

Ayer, Alfred Jules, Language, Truth and Logic, London, Victor Gollancz, 1956.Google Scholar

Steven, C. Bank and Norman, G. Poythress Jr., “The Elements of Persuasion in Expert Testimony”, Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 10, 1982, 173–204.Google Scholar

John A. Barnden, “Simulative Reasoning, Common-Sense Psychology, and Artificial Intelligence”, Mental Simulation, ed. Davies, Martin and Stone, Tony, Oxford, Blackwell, 1995, 247–73.Google Scholar

Else, M. Barth and Erik, C.Krabbe, W., From Axiom to Dialogue, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1982.Google Scholar

Nuel, D. Belnap Jr., An Analysis of Questions: Preliminary Report, Santa Monica, CA, System Development Corporation, 1963.Google Scholar

Nuel D. Belnap, ‘Questions: Their Presuppositions, and How They Can Fail to Arise’, The Logical Way of Doing Things, ed. Lambert, Karel, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1969, 23–37.Google Scholar

Trevor Bench-Capon, “Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law”, Legal Knowledge Based Systems: JURIX '95, The Eighth Annual Conference, ed. Jaap, C. Hage et al., Lelystad, Koninklijke Vermande, 1995, 5--14.Google Scholar

Bench-Capon, Trevor, “Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks”, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 2003, 429–48.CrossRef Google Scholar

Trevor Bench-Capon and Henry Prakken, “Argumentation”, Information Technology and Lawyers: Advanced Technology in the Legal Domain, from Challenges to Daily Routine, ed. Arno, R. Lodder and Oskamp, Anja, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2005, 1–22.Google Scholar

Bex, Floris and Prakken, Henry, “Reinterpreting Arguments in Dialogue: An Application to Evidential Reasoning”, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2004, The Seventeeth Annual Conference, ed. Thomas F. Gordon, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 2004, 119–29.Google Scholar

Bex, Floris, Prakken, Henry, Reed, Chris, and Walton, Douglas, “Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence, Argument Schemes and Generalizations”, Artificial Intelligence & Law, 11, 2003, 125–65.CrossRef Google Scholar

Anthony, J. Bocchino and David, A. Sonenshein, A Practical Guide to Federal Evidence, St. Paul, MN, National Institute for Trial Advocacy, 1988.Google Scholar

Bodin, Harry Sabbath, Principles of Cross-Examination, Practising Law Institute, 1967.Google Scholar

Michael, E. Bratman, Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1987.Google Scholar

Michael C. Bromby and Maria Jean J. Hall, “The Development and Rapid Evaluation of the Knowledge Model of ADVOKATE: An Advisory System to Assess the Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony”, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2002, The Fifteenth Annual Conference, ed. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Daskalopulu, A., and Winkels, R. G. F., Amsterdam, IOS Press, 2002, 143–52.Google Scholar

Buckwalter, Art, Interviews and Interrogations, Boston, Butterworth, 1983.Google Scholar

Burke, Michael, “Unstated Premises”, Informal Logic, 7, 1985, 107–18.CrossRef Google Scholar

Craig, R. Callen, “Intelligent Procedures for Drawing Inferences in Static and Dynamic Legal Environments”, Cardozo Law Review, 22, 2001, 1791–1809.Google Scholar

Craig R. Callen, “Rationality and Relevancy: Conditional Relevancy and Constrained Resources”, presented at the Conference on Rationality in Evidence Law, Detroit College School of Law, Michigan State University, 2003.

Carlson, Lauri, Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1983.Google Scholar

Christiano Castelfranchi and Rino Falcone, “Social Trust: A Cognitive Appraoch”, Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, ed. Castelfranchi, Christiano and Tan, Y. H., Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2000, 55–90.Google Scholar

Cawsey, Alison, Explanation and Interaction: The Computer Generation of Explanatory Dialogue, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1992.Google Scholar

David, S. Clarke Jr., Practical Inferences, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985.Google Scholar

Cody, C. A. J., Testimony: A Philosophical Study, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Cohen, David, The Crucial 10% That Really Counts for Trial Victories, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Executive Reports Corporation, 1973.Google Scholar

Robin, G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1946.Google Scholar

Irving, M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, 7th ed., New York, Macmillan, 1986.Google Scholar

Irving, M. Copi and Cohen, Carl, Introduction to Logic, 10th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998.Google Scholar

Crump, David, “On the Uses of Irrelevant Evidence”, Houston Law Review, 34, 1997, 1–45.Google Scholar

Mirjan, R. Damaska, Evidence Law Adrift, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Leonard, E. Davies, Anatomy of Cross-Examination, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1993.Google Scholar

James, T. Dillon, The Practice of Questioning, London, Routledge, 1990.Google Scholar

Disclosure, “Inside the Interrogation Room”, CBC news program, January 28, 2003. Available at www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/030128_confess/main

Doutre, Sylvie, McBurney, Peter, Wooldridge, Michael, and Barden, William, Information-Seeking Agent Dialogs with Permissions and Arguments, Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, 2005. Available in pdf format at http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/research/techreports/

Dray, William, Philosophy of History, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1964.Google Scholar

Dray, William, History as Re-enactment: R. G. Collingwood's Idea of History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Paul Drew, “Strategies in the Contest between Lawyer and Witness in Cross-Examination”, Language in the Judicial Process, ed. Judith, N. Levi and Anne, G. Walker, New York, Plenum, 1990, 39–64.Google Scholar

Paul, E. Dunne, Doutre, Sylvie, and Bench-Capon, Trevor, “Discovering Inconsistency through Examination Dialogues”, Proceedings IJCAI-05 (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence), Edinburgh, 2005, 1560–61. Available at http://ijcai.org/search.phpGoogle Scholar

Robert, H. Ennis, “Identifying Implicit Assumptions”, Synthese, 51, 1982, 61–86.Google Scholar

Evans, J. D. G., Aristotle's Concept of Dialectic, London, Cambridge University Press, 1977.Google Scholar

Arthur, M. Farley and Freeman, Kathleen, “A Model of Argumentation and Its Application to Legal Reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 1996, 163–97.Google Scholar

Faulkner, P., “On the Rationality of Our Response to Testimony”, Synthese, 131, 2002, 353–70.CrossRef Google Scholar

Federal Rules of Evidence, Committee of the Judiciary: House of Representatives, 2006, available at http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/printers/109th/31310.pdf

Felscher, Walter, “Dialogues, Strategies, and Intuitionistic Provability”, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 28, 1985, 217–54.CrossRef Google Scholar

Feteris, Eveline, Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation, Dordrecht, Foris, 1999.CrossRef Google Scholar

Fine, Ralph Adam, “Irving Younger Was Wrong When He Commanded ‘Use Only Leading Questions’”, The Wisconsin Lawyer, 6, 1994, 25–6.Google Scholar

Frank, Jerome, Courts on Trial, New York, Atheneum, 1963.Google Scholar

Stan Franklin and Art Graesser, “Is It an Agent, or Just a Program? A Taxonomy for Autonomous Agents”, Intelligent Agents III: Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, ed. Jorg, P. Muller, Michael, J. Wooldridge, and Nicholas, R. Jennings, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1996, 21–35.Google Scholar

James, B. Freeman, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Berlin, Foris, 1991.Google Scholar

Friedman, Richard, “Minimizing the Jury Over-Valuation Concern”, presented at the Symposium on Rationality in Evidence Law, Michigan State University, 2003.Google Scholar

Gee, D. J. and Mason, J. K., The Courts and the Doctor, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Thomas, F. Gordon, “Computational Dialectics”, Workshop Kooperative Juristische Informationssysteme, GMD Studien, Sankt Augustin, Germany, 1994, 25–36.Google Scholar

Thomas, F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1995.Google Scholar

Thomas F. Gordon, “Computational Dialectics”, Computers as Assistants – A New Generation of Support Systems, ed. Hoschka, P., Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, 186–203.Google Scholar

Thomas F. Gordon, “A Computational Model of Argument for Legal Reasoning Support Systems”, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, ed. Paul, E. Dunne and Bench-Capon, Trevor, IAAIL Workshop Series, Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers, 2005, 53–64.Google Scholar

Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken and Douglas Walton, ‘The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof, Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875–96, 2007.

Gough, James and Tindale, Christopher, “Hidden or Missing Premises”, Informal Logic, 7, 1985, 99–106.CrossRef Google Scholar

Michael, H. Graham, “Impeaching the Professional Expert Witness by a Showing of Financial Interest”, Indiana Law Journal, 53, 1977, 35–53.Google Scholar

J. Paul Grice, “Logic and Conversation”, The Logic of Grammar, ed. Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, Encino, CA, 1975, 64–75.Google Scholar

Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981.CrossRef Google Scholar

Haack, Susan, Defending Science within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 2003.Google Scholar

Jaap, C. Hage, Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1997.Google Scholar

Jaap, C. Hage, Leenes, Ronald, and Arno, R. Lodder, “Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2, 1994, 113–67.Google Scholar

Charles, L. Hamblin, Fallacies, London, Methuen, 1970.Google Scholar

Charles, L. Hamblin, “Mathematical Models of Dialogue,” Theoria, 37, 1971, 130–55.Google Scholar

David Harrah, “The Logic of Questions,” Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2, ed. Gabbay, Dov and Guenther, F., Dordrecht, Reidel, 1984, 715–64.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hastie, Reid, Steven, D. Penrod, and Pennington, Nancy, Inside the Jury, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1983.CrossRef Google Scholar

George H. Hathaway, ‘MRE 611: Eight Classic Objections as to Form’, Michigan Bar Journal, 71, 1992, 688.

Marc, D. Hauser, The Evolution of Communication, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Herman, Russ, “Going by the Book: Direct and Cross-Examination of Medical Experts”, Trial, 27, 1991, 52–61.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko, “Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model,” Erkenntnis, 38, 1979, 355–68.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko, “The Interrogative Model of Inquiry as a General Theory of Argumentation”, Communication and Cognition, 25, 1992, 221–42.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko, “Socratic Questioning, Logic and Rhetoric”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 1 (No. 184), 1993, 5–30.Google Scholar

Hintikka, Jaakko, “The Games of Logic and the Games of Inquiry”, Dialectica, 49, 1995, 229–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Jaakko Hintikka and Merrill B. Hintikka, “Sherlock Holmes Confronts Modern Logic: Toward a Theory of Information-Seeking Through Questioning”, Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation, ed. Barth, E. M. and Martens, J. L., Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1982, 55–76.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hitchcock, David, “Enthymematic Arguments”, Informal Logic, 7, 1985, 83–97.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hitchcock, David, “Pollock on Practical Reasoning”, Informal Logic, 22, 2002, 247–56.Google Scholar

Hitchcock, David, McBurney, Peter, and Parsons, Simon, “A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues”, Argument and Its Applications: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), ed. Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H., compact disk. Also available at http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~peter/

John Horty, ‘Nonmonotonic Logic’, The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, ed. Goble, L., Oxford, Blackwell, 2001, 336–61.CrossRef Google Scholar

Huber, Peter, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, New York, Basic Books, 1991.Google Scholar

Fred, E. Inbau and John, E. Reid, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 2nd ed., Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1967.Google Scholar

Innocence Project, 2001, Web page: http://www.innocenceproject.org/

John, R. Josephson and Susan, G. Josephson, Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Kaiser, Artur, Questioning Techniques, Pomona, CA, Hunter House, 1979.Google Scholar

Erik, C. W. Krabbe, “So What? Profiles for Relevance Criticism in Persuasion Dialogues,” Argumentation, 6, 1992, 271–83.Google Scholar

Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Profiles of Dialogue”, JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of His 50th Birthday, ed. Gerbrandy, Jelle, Marx, Maarten, Rijke, Maarten, and Venema, Yde, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 1999, 25–36.Google Scholar

Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Metadialogues”, Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, ed. Frans, H. van Eemeren, Blair, J. Anthony, Charles, A. Willard, and Henkemans, A. Francisca Snoek, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2003, 83–90.Google Scholar

Saul Kripke, “Semantical Analysis of Intuitionistic Logic I”, Formal Systems and Recursive Functions, ed. Crossley, J. N. and Dummett, M., Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1965, 92–113.Google Scholar

Lane, Jane, Titus Oates, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1971.Google Scholar

Robert, P. Lawry, “A Nation under Lost Lawyers: The Legal Profession at the Close of the Twentieth Century”, Dickinson Law Review, 100, 1996, 563–86.Google Scholar

Earl, J. Levy, Examination of Witnesses in Criminal Cases, 4th ed., Scarborough, Ontario, Carswell, 1999.Google Scholar

Arno, R. Lodder, Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialog Games, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maastricht, 1998.Google Scholar

Arno, R. Lodder, Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1999.Google Scholar

Loftus, Elizabeth, Eyewitness Testimony, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1979.Google Scholar

Lubet, Steven, Modern Trial Advocacy: Analysis and Practice, Notre Dame, IN, National Institute of Trial Advocacy, 1997.Google Scholar

MacCrimmon, Marilyn, “What Is Common about Common Sense?”, Cardozo Law Review, 22, 2001, 1433–60.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, Jim, “The Dialectics of Logic,” Logique et Analyse, 94, 1981, 159–77.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, Jim, “Begging the Question in Dialogue,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62, 1984, 175–81.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mackenzie, Jim, “Four Dialogue Systems,” Studia Logica, 49, 1990, 567–83.CrossRef Google Scholar

McBurney, Peter and Parsons, Simon [2002]: Dialogue Games in Multi-Agent Systems. Informal Logic. Special Issue on Applications of Argumentation in Computer Science. 22 (3): 257–74.Google Scholar

McCannell, Munro, “Corroboration in Criminal Cases”, Scots Law Times, 34, 1996, 347–53.Google Scholar

James, W. McElhaney, “Leading Questions”, ABA Journal, 75, 1989, 104–7.Google Scholar

Geoffrey, P. Miller, “Pragmatics and the Maxims of Interpretation”, Wisconsin Law Review, 20, 1990, 1179–1227.Google Scholar

David, W. Moore, The Super Pollsters, New York, Four Walls Eight Windows, 1992.Google Scholar

Johanna, D. Moore, Participating in Explanatory Dialogues, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Moreno, Joelle Anne, “Beyond the Polemic against Junk Science: Navigating the Oceans That Divide Science and Law with Justice Breyer at the Helm”, Boston University Law Review, 81, 2001, 1033–91.Google Scholar

Gabriel Nuchelmans, “On the Fourfold Root of the Argumentum ad Hominem”, Empirical Logic and Public Debate, ed. Erik, C. W. Krabbe, Dalitz, Renee Jose, and Pier, A. Smit, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 1993, 37–47.Google Scholar

Ogle, Richard, Parkman, Allen, and Porter, James, “Questions: Leading and Otherwise”, Judges Journal, 19, 1980, 42–5.Google Scholar

Owen, David, None of the Above, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1985.Google Scholar

Palmer, Andrew, Proof and the Preparation of Trials, Sydney, Lawbook Co., 2003.Google Scholar

Roger C. Park, “Adversarial Influences on the Interrogation of Trial Witnesses”, Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice, ed. Peter, J. van Koppen and Steven, D. Penrod, New York, Kluwer, 2003, 131–66.Google Scholar

Roger, C. Park, David, P. Leonard, and Steven, H. Goldberg, Evidence Law, St. Paul, MN, West Group, 1998.Google Scholar

Pennington, Nancy and Hastie, Reid, “A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making”, Cardozo Law Review, 13, 1991, 519–57.Google Scholar

Nancy Pennington and Reid Hastie, “The Story Model for Juror Decision Making”, Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making, ed. Hastie, Reid, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993, 192–221.CrossRef Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim, The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.Google Scholar

Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame, IN, Notre Dame University Press, 1969.Google Scholar

Robert, C.Pinto, J.Blair, Anthony, and Katharine, E. Parr, Reasoning: A Practical Guide for Canadian Students, Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice Hall Canada, 1993.Google Scholar

William, T. Pizzi, Trials without Truth: Why Our System of Criminal Trials Has Become an Expensive Failure and What Needs to Be Done to Rebuild It, New York, New York University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

John, L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, “On Formalizing Burden of Proof in Legal Argument”, Legal Knowledge-Based Systems: JURIX 99, The Twelfth Conference, Nijmegen, Gerard Noodt Instituut, 1991, 85–97.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1997.CrossRef Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, “Modelling Reasoning about Evidence in Legal Procedure”, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, St. Louis, 2001, New York, ACM Press, 2001a, 119–28.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, “Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation”, Synthese, 127, 2001b, 187–219.CrossRef Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?Fundamenta Informaticae 48, 253–71 (2001c).Google Scholar

Henry Prakken, ‘Logical Dialectics: The Missing Link Between Deductivism and Pragma-Dialectics’, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. Frans, H. van Eemeren at al., Amsterdam, SicSat, 2003, 857–60.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, “Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue”, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20, 2005, 1–26.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, Reed, Chris, and Walton, Douglas, “Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations in Reasoning about Evidence”, ICAIL Conference Proceedings, University of Edinburgh, 2003, 32--41.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, Chris Reed, and Douglas Walton, ‘Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Held June 6–11, 2005 in Bologna, Italy, New York, The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2005, 115–124.

Prakken, Henry and Sartor, Giovanni, “A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 1996, 331–68.CrossRef Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry and Sartor, Giovanni, “Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6, 1998, 231–87.CrossRef Google Scholar

Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor, The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: a Critical Survey. In Kakas, A. and Sadri, F. (eds.), Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. Essays In Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2048, Berlin 2002, 342–80.Google Scholar

Iyad Rahwan, Pavlos Moraitis, and Chris Reed, “Preface”, Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: First International Workshop, ArgMAS 2004, Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. Rahwan, Iyad, Moraitis, Pavlos, and Reed, Chris, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2005, I–VIII.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sarvapalid, D.Ramchurn, Dong Huyn, and Nicholas, R. Jennings, “Trust in Multi-agent Systems”, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 19, 2004, 1–25.Google Scholar

Redmayne, Mike, “A Corroboration Approach to Recovered Memories”, Law Quarterly Review, 116, 2000, 147–55.Google Scholar

Redmayne, Mike, Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001.CrossRef Google Scholar

Redmayne, Mike, “The Relevance of Bad Character”, Cambridge Law Journal, 61, 2002, 684–714.CrossRef Google Scholar

Reed, Chris, Timothy, J. Norman, and Nicholas, R. Jennings, “Negotiating the Semantics of Agent Communication Languages”, Computational Intelligence, 18, 2002, 229--252.

Reed, Chris and Timothy, J. Norman, eds., Argumentation Machines, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2004.CrossRef Google Scholar

Reed, Chris and Rowe, Glenn, Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML, Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee, 2002.Google Scholar

Chris Reed and Douglas Walton, “Towards a Formal and Implemented Model of Argumentation Schemes in Agent Communication”, Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: First International Workshop, ArgMAS 2004, Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. Rahwan, Iyad, Moraitis, Pavlos, and Reed, Chris, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2005, 19–30.CrossRef Google Scholar

Chris Reed and Douglas Walton, “Evaluating Corroborative Evidence”, Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. Frans, H. van Eemeren, Blair, J. Anthony, Charles, A. Willard, and Henkemans, Francisca Snoek, Amsterdam, SicSat, 2006, 881--5.Google Scholar

Thomas Reid, “An Inquiry into the Mind on the Principles of Common Sense”, The Works of Thomas Reid, ed. Bart, W. H., Edinburgh, Machlachlan and Stewart, 1764.Google Scholar

Rescher, Nicholas, Dialectics, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1977.Google Scholar

Robinson, Richard, Plato's Earlier Dialectic, 2nd ed., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1953.Google Scholar

Robert, F. Royal and Steven, R. Schutt, The Gentle Art of Interviewing and Interrogation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1976.Google Scholar

Sanchirico, Chris William, “Character Evidence and the Object of Trial”, Columbia Law Review, 101, 2001, 1227–1311.CrossRef Google Scholar

Sandler, Paul Mark and James, K. Archibald, Model Witness Examinations, Chicago, American Bar Association, 1997.Google Scholar

Kevin, W. Saunders, “Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation”, South Carolina Law Review, 44, 1993, 343–82.Google Scholar

Schank, R. and Abelson, R., Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1977.Google Scholar

David, A. Schum, Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, New York, Wiley, 1994.Google Scholar

David A. Schum and Jon R. Morris, “Assessing the Competence and Credibility of Human Sources of Intelligence Information: Contributions from Law”, slide presentation at Cardozo School of Law, January 20, 2007.

Schuman, Howard and Presser, Stanley, Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording and Context, New York, Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar

Louis, E. Schwartz, Proof, Persuasion and Cross-Examination, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Executive Reports Corporation, 1973.Google Scholar

Searle, John, Rationality in Action, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 2001.Google Scholar

Claude, E. Shannon and Weaver, Warren, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana, IL, University of Illinois Press, 1972.Google Scholar

Barry, G. Silverman, Critiquing Human Error: A Knowledge Based Human-Computer Collaboration Approach, London, Academic Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Munindar, P. Singh, “Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles”, Computer, 31, 1998, 425–45.Google Scholar

Stone, Marcus, Cross-Examination in Legal Trials, 2nd ed., London, Butterworths, 1995.Google Scholar

Strier, Franklin, “Making the Jury Trial More Truthful”, University of California Davis Law Review, 30, 1996, 95–182.Google Scholar

John, W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence, 4th ed., St. Paul, MN, West Publishing Co., 1992.Google Scholar

Taylor, Lawrence, Scientific Interrogation, Charlottesville, VA, The Michie Company, 1984.Google Scholar

Peter Tillers, “Making Sense of the Process of Proof in Litigation”, The Dynamics of Judicial Proof, ed. MacCrimmon, Marylin and Tillers, Peter, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2002, 3–17.CrossRef Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1958.Google Scholar

Twining, William, Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985.Google Scholar

Twining, William, “Narrative and Generalizations in Argumentation about Questions of Fact”, South Texas Law Review, 40, 1999, 351–452.Google Scholar

Twining, William, Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006.CrossRef Google Scholar

Underwood, R. H. and Fortune, W. H., Trial Ethics, Boston, Little Brown, 1988.Google Scholar

Frans, H. van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Rob, Speech Acts in Communicative Discussions, Dordrecht, Foris, 1984.Google Scholar

Frans, H. van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Rob, “Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective”, Argumentation, 1, 1987, 283–301.Google Scholar

Frans, H. van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Rob, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1992.Google Scholar

Kessel, Gordon, “Adversary Excesses in the American Criminal Trial”, Notre Dame Law Review, 67, 1992, 1–112.Google Scholar

Peter J. van Koppen and Steven D. Penrod, “Adversarial or Inquisitorial: Comparing Systems”, Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice, ed. Peter, J. van Koppen and Steven, D. Penrod, New York, Kluwer, 2003a, 1–19.Google Scholar

Peter J. van Koppen and Steven D. Penrod, “The John Wayne and Judge Dee Versions of Justice”, Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice, ed. Peter, J. van Koppen and Steven, D. Penrod, New York, Kluwer, 2003b, 347–67.Google Scholar

Verheij, Bart, Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat, doctoral dissertation, University of Maastricht, 1996.Google Scholar

Bart Verheij, “Dialectical Argumentation as a Heuristic for Courtroom Decision Making”, 2000, available at http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm

Verheij, Bart, “Legal Decision Making as Dialectical Theory Construction with Argumentation Schemes”, The 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the Conference, New York, Association for Computing Machinery, 2001, 225–36. Available at http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.Google Scholar

Verheij, Bart, “Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 2003b, 167–95.CrossRef Google Scholar

Verheij, Bart, ‘DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 2003a, 319–346. Available at http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm.CrossRef Google Scholar

Verheij, Bart, Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers, The Hague, Asser Press, 2005.CrossRef Google Scholar

Georg, H. von Wright, “On So-Called Practical Inference”, Acta Sociologica, 15, 1972, 39–53.Google Scholar

Willem, A. Wagenaar, Peter, J. van Koppen, and Hans, F. M. Crombag, Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence, Hertfordshire, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Logical Dialogue – Games and Fallacies, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 1984.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Question–Reply Argumentation, New York, Greenwood Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Practical Reasoning, Savage, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 1990.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, Tuscaloosa, AL, University of Alabama Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 1996.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Appeal to Expert Opinion, University Park, PA, Penn State Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Legal Argumentation and Evidence, University Park, PA, Penn State Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, “The Interrogation as a Type of Dialogue”, Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 2003, 1771–1802.CrossRef Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Relevance in Argumentation, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 2004.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2005.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, “Argument from Appearance: A New Argumentation Scheme”, Logique et Analyse, 195, 2006a, 319–40.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, “Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework for Critically Questioning an Expert Opinion”, Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2006b, 745–77.CrossRef Google Scholar

Douglas Walton and Thomas F. Gordon, “Critical Questions in Computational Models of Legal Argument”, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series, ed. Paul, E. Dunne and Bench-Capon, Trevor, Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers, 2005, 103–11.Google Scholar

Douglas, N. Walton and Erik, C. W. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue, Albany, NY, 1995.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas and Macagno, Fabrizio, “Common Knowledge in Legal Reasoning about Evidence”, International Commentaries on Evidence, 3, 2005, 1–42.Google Scholar

Francis, L. Wellman, The Art of Cross-Examination, New York, Macmillan, 1936.Google Scholar

Whately, Richard, Elements of Rhetoric, London, Parker, Son and Bourn, 1863.Google Scholar

John, H. Wigmore, The Principles of Judicial Proof, Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1913 (second edition, 1931).Google Scholar

John, H. Wigmore, A Student's Textbook of the Law of Evidence, Chicago, The Foundation Press, 1935.Google Scholar

John, H. Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence, Vol. 1 (of 10 volumes), 3rd ed., Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1940.Google Scholar

Wilson, W. A., “The Logic of Corroboration”, Scottish Law Review, 76, 1960, 101–8.Google Scholar

Woods, John and Walton, Douglas, “Arresting Circles in Formal Dialogues”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 7, 1978, 73–90.CrossRef Google Scholar

Woods, John and Walton, Douglas, “Question-Begging and Cumulativeness in Dialectical Games,” Nous, 16, 1982, 585–605.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wooldridge, Michael, Reasoning about Rational Agents, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Wooldridge, Michael, An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems, Chichester, Wiley, 2002.Google Scholar

Wooldridge, Michael and Nicholas, R. Jennings, “Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice”, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 1995, 115–52.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wooldridge, Michael, McBurney, Peter, and Parsons, Simon, “On the Meta-Logic of Arguments”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, eds., F. Dignum, V. Dignum, S. Koenig, S. Kraus, M. P. Singh, and M. Wooldridge, Utrecht, ACM Press, 2005, 560--7.

Yu, Bin and Munindar, P. Singh, “A Social Mechanism of Reputation Management in Electronic Communities”, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2000, 154--165. Available at www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/mpsingh/papersGoogle Scholar

Yu, Bin and Munindar, Paul Singh, “Distributed Reputation Management for Electronic Commerce”, Computational Intelligence, 18, 2002, 535–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Aarnio, A., The Rational as Reasonable: A Treatise of Legal Justification, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1987.Google Scholar

Alphandery, P. D., “The Inquisition”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 12, 1963, 377–83.Google Scholar

Anaximemes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, trans. E. S. Forster, in Vol. XI of The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, ed. Ross, W. D., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1946.Google Scholar

Andersen, Martin Edwin, “Terrorist Interrogations”, Insight on the News, June 17, 2002, 21–4, available on Lexis–Nexis (Academic Universe).Google Scholar

Aristotle, , On Sophistical Refutations, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1928.Google Scholar

Aristotle, , Topics, trans. E. S. Forster, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1939.Google Scholar

Nuel D. Belnap, Jr., “Questions: Their Presuppositions, and How They Can Fail to Arise,” The Logical Way of Doing Things, ed. Lambert, Karel, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press, 1969.Google Scholar

Jeremy Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Vol. 7 of The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. Bowring, John, New York, Russell and Russell, 1962.Google Scholar

Boyer, Paul and Nissenbaum, Stephen, The Salem Witchcraft Papers, Vol. 1, New York, Da Capo, 1977.Google Scholar

CBS News Transcripts, 60 Minutes, September 22, 2002, Burrelle's Information Services, available on Lexis–Nexis (Academic Universe).

Eisele, Carolyn, Historical Perspectives on Peirce's Logic of Science, Vol. 1, Berlin, Mouton, 1985.Google Scholar

Empiricus, Sextus, Against the Logicians (AL), trans. R. G. Bury, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1933.Google Scholar

Federal Rules of Evidence, “Federal Rulemaking – Rules in Effect,” 2002. The latest versions of the federal rules of evidence as well as other rules can be found at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/newrules4.html

Marvin, E. Frankel, Partisan Justice, New York, Hill and Wang, 1980.Google Scholar

James B. Freeman, “The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowledge”, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Hans, V. Hansen and Robert, C. Pinto, University Park, PA, Penn State Press, 1995, 263–73.Google Scholar

Michael Gagarin, “Probability and Persuasion: Plato and Early Greek Rhetoric”, Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. Worthington, Ian, London, Routledge, 1994, 46–68.Google Scholar

Govier, Trudy, A Practical Study of Argument, 3rd ed., Belmont, Wadsworth, 1992.Google Scholar

Charles, L. Hamblin, Imperatives, New York, Blackwell, 1987.Google Scholar

Hample, Dale, “A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Inquisition”, Argumentation, 15, 2001, 135–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Harman, Gilbert, “The Inference to the Best Explanation”, Philosophical Review, 74, 1965, 88–95.CrossRef Google Scholar

George, H. Hathaway, “MRE 611: Eight Classic Objections as to Form, or Have You Stopped Beating Your Spouse?”, Michigan Bar Journal, 71, 1992, 688.Google Scholar

Jaakko Hintikka, “The Logic of Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model”, Konzepte der Dialektike, ed. Becker, Werner and Wilhelm, K. Essler, Frankfurt, Vittorio Klostermann, 1981, 212–31.Google Scholar

John Horty, ‘Nonmonotonic Logic’, The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, ed. L. Goble, Oxford, Blackwell, 2001, 336–361.

Patrick, J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 3rd ed., Belmont, Wadsworth, 1988.Google Scholar

Edward, J. Imwinkelried, “A Comparativist Critique of the Interface between Hearsay and Expert Opinion in American Evidence Law”, Boston College Law Review, 33, 1991, 1–36.Google Scholar

Albert, R. Jonsen and Toulmin, Stephen, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1988.Google Scholar

Saul, M. Kassin, Lorri, N. Williams, and Courtney, L. Saunders, “Dirty Tricks of Cross-Examination”, Law and Human Behavior, 14, 1990, 373–84.Google Scholar

Jeffrey, L Kestler, Questioning Techniques and Tactics, New York, McGraw–Hill, 1982.Google Scholar

Erik, C. W. Krabbe, Studies in Dialogical Logic, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Groningen, 1982.Google Scholar

Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Appeal to Ignorance”, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Hans, V. Hansen and Robert, C. Pinto, University Park, PA, Penn State Press, 1995, 251–64.Google Scholar

Richard, A. Leo and Richard, J. Ofshe, “The Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivations of Liberty and Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Psychological Interrogation”, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 1998, 429–96.Google Scholar

Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 9th ed., London, Churchill, 1726.Google Scholar

Mackenzie, Jim, “Question-Begging in Non-cumulative Systems,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 1979, 117–33.CrossRef Google Scholar

Mackenzie, Jim, “Why Do We Number Theorems?”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 58, 1980, 135–49.CrossRef Google Scholar

Magid, Laurie, “Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?”, Michigan Law Review, 99, 2001, 1168–1210.CrossRef Google Scholar

Montoya, Jean, “Something Not So Funny Happened on the Way to Conviction: The Pretrial Interrogation of Child Witnesses”, Arizona Law Review, 35, 1993, 927–87.Google Scholar

Nissan, Ephraim, “The Bayesianism Debate in Legal Scholarship”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 9, 2001, 199–214.CrossRef Google Scholar

Charles S. Peirce, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 2, “Elements of Logic”, ed. Hartshorne, Charles and Weiss, Paul, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, “From Logic to Dialectics in Legal Argumentation”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Washington, DC, ACM Press, 1995, 165–74.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, “Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?” Fundamenta Informaticae, 20, 2001, 1–20.Google Scholar

Prakken, Henry, “Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation”, Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 2005, 1009–1040.

Roy, A. Redfield, Cross Examination and the Witness, Mundelein, IL, Callaghan and Company, 1963.Google Scholar

Redmayne, Mike, “Rationality, Naturalism and Evidence Law”, Michigan State Law Review, 4, 2003, 849–83.Google Scholar

Chris Reed and Douglas Walton, “Argumentation Schemes in Argument-as-Process and Argument-as-Product”, presented at IL@25, Informal Logic at 25, May, 2003.

Rescher, Nicholas, Plausible Reasoning, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1976.Google Scholar

Rescher, Nicholas, “Response”, Informal Logic, 14, 1992, 53–8.CrossRef Google Scholar

Richard, H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy, New York, Harcourt Brace, 1959.Google Scholar

Kevin, W. Saunders, “The Mythic Difficulty in Proving a Negative”, Seton Hall Law Review, 15, 1985, 276–89.Google Scholar

Frans, H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Amsterdam, SicSat, 2002.Google Scholar

Bart Verheij, “Anchored Narratives and Dialectical Argumentation”, available at http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm

Walton, Douglas, “Rules for Plausible Reasoning”, Informal Logic, 14, 1992, 33–51.CrossRef Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1996.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, One-Sided Arguments: A Dialectical Analysis of Bias, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar

Walton, Douglas and Reed, Chris, “Enthymemes and Argumentation Schemes”, Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 145, 2005, 339–70.CrossRef Google Scholar

James, W. Williams, “Interrogating Justice: A Critical Analysis of the Police Interrogation and Its Role in the Criminal Justice Process”, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 2000, 209–41.Google Scholar