Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Evidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part II Convergences between Systems
- Part III On Evidential Inferences
- Part IV Expert Evidence
- 12 From Institutional to Epistemic Authority: Rethinking Court-Appointed Experts
- 13 Latent Justice
- 14 Prevention and Education
- 15 Evidentiary Practices and Risks of Wrongful Conviction
- Part V Standards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
12 - From Institutional to Epistemic Authority: Rethinking Court-Appointed Experts
from Part IV - Expert Evidence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2022
Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Evidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part II Convergences between Systems
- Part III On Evidential Inferences
- Part IV Expert Evidence
- 12 From Institutional to Epistemic Authority: Rethinking Court-Appointed Experts
- 13 Latent Justice
- 14 Prevention and Education
- 15 Evidentiary Practices and Risks of Wrongful Conviction
- Part V Standards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
Summary
Beyond any theoretical suppositions or assumptions regarding the greater reliability of court-appointed experts as opposed to expert witnesses, very few analyses have been conducted to test the hypothesis in current legal systems. And this is precisely the objective of this work: taking the current Spanish procedural system as my example, I will set out to question not only the necessary epistemic superiority of court-appointed expert opinions, but also the fact that the mere origin of the expert opinion is a relevant factor that should be considered. As we shall see, the selection, prepping and remuneration of the expert could be regulated in such a way that they do not even guarantee the impartiality of the court-appointed expert; however, in order to assess the reliability of an expert opinion we would have to evaluate what the expert did and asserted in the specific case, and this is independent of their origin.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Evidential Legal ReasoningCrossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions, pp. 217 - 247Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
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
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
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