Skip to main content
×
Home
The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 3
  • Cited by
    This book has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Gleeson SC, Justin 2016. The judge, the advocate and the expert witness – revisiting the seminal views of Sir Owen Dixon in the modern context. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, Vol. 48, Issue. 4, p. 366.


    Walton, Douglas and Zhang, Nanning 2016. An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence. Ratio Juris, Vol. 29, Issue. 1, p. 59.


    Wakefield, Andre 2014. Butterfield’s nightmare: the history of science as Disney history. History and Technology, Vol. 30, Issue. 3, p. 232.


    ×
  • Export citation
  • Recommend to librarian
  • Recommend this book

    Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

    The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence
    • Online ISBN: 9780511575136
    • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511575136
    Please enter your name
    Please enter a valid email address
    Who would you like to send this to? *
    ×
  • Buy the print book

Book description

Justice systems increasingly rely on expert evidence. We are therefore obliged to justify the courts' ability to assess this evidence, especially when the courts must resolve disagreements between experts or address possible bias. By reintegrating contemporary evidence theory with applied philosophy, Deirdre Dwyer analyses the epistemological basis for the judicial assessment of expert evidence. Reintegrating evidence with procedure, she also examines how we might arrange our legal processes in order to support our epistemological and non-epistemological expectations. Including analysis of the judicial assessment of expert evidence in civil litigation (comparing practice in England and Wales with that in the United States, France, Germany and Italy), the book also provides the first detailed account of the historical development of English civil expert evidence and the first analysis of the use of party experts, single joint experts and assessors under the Civil Procedure Rules.

Reviews

    • Aa
    • Aa
Refine List
Actions for selected content:
Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Send to Kindle
  • Send to Dropbox
  • Send to Google Drive
  • Send content to

    To send 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 sending content to .

    To send content to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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 sending to your Kindle.

    Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

    Please be advised that item(s) you selected are not available.
    You are about to send:
    ×

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
×

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.


A. Stein , Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 12

H. Ho , A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)

W. Twining , ‘The Rationalist Tradition of Evidence Scholarship,’ in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 35–98

J. Jackson , ‘Analysing the New Evidence Scholarship: Towards a New Conception of the Law of Evidence’ (1996) 16 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 309–28

D. Walton , ‘Rules for Reasoning from Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge’ (2006) 34 Philosophia 355–76

J. Cohen , The Probable and the Provable (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977)

J. Langbein , Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977)

M. Frankel , ‘The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1031–1059

D. Devine , J. Buddenbaum , S. Houp , D. Stolle and N. Studebaker , ‘Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries’ (2007) 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 273–303

Practice and Potential of the Advisory Jury’ (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 1363–81

The Case for Special Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 1155–76

R. Lempert , ‘Civil Juries and Complex Cases: Let's Not Rush to Judgment’ (1981) 80 Michigan Law Review 68–132

B. Bornstein , ‘The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?’ (1999) 23 Law and Human Behaviour 75–91

J. Jackson and S. Doran , ‘Judge and Jury: Towards a New Division of Labour in Criminal Trials60 Modern Law Review 759–78

K. Graham , ‘“There’ll Always be an England”: the Instrumental Ideology of Evidence’ (1987) 85 Michigan Law Review, 1204–34

R. Hastie , Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)

W. Twining , ‘Argumentation, Stories and Generalizations: A Comment’ (2007) 6 Law Probability and Risk 169–85

A. Holmes , ‘Moore's Appeal to Common Sense’ (1961) 58 Journal of Philosophy 197–207

D. Kahneman , P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)

S. Stich , ‘Could Man be an Irrational Animal?’ (1985) 64 Synthèse 115–35

H. Hart and T. Honoré , Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985)

R. Anderson and J. Pichert , ‘Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift in Perspective’ (1978) 17 Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1–12.

J. Searle , Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969)

N. MacCormick , Institutions of Law: an Essay in Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 12.

T. Anderson , D. Schum and W. Twining , Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 71–7.

R. Boyd , ‘On the Current Status of Scientific Realism’ (1983) 19 Erkenntnis 45–90

G. Teubner , ‘How the Law Thinks: Toward A Constructivist Epistemology Of Law’ (1989) 23 Law and Society Review 727–58

E. Beecher-Monas , Evaluating Scientific Evidence: an Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)

H. Engelhardt and A. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)

P. Kitcher , ‘Truth or Consequences?’ (1998) 72 Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 49–63

A. Goldman , Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 221–71

P. Kitcher , ‘1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences’ (1984) 93 Philosophical Review 335–73, 335

P. Kitcher , ‘Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy’ (2001) 110 Philosophical Review 151–97

L. Laudan , ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’ (1981) 48 Philosophy of Science 19–49, 20

M. Schlick , ‘Positivismus und Realismus’ (1932) 3 Erkenntnis 1–31

P. Kitcher , ‘Theories, Theorists and Theoretical Change’ (1978) 87 Philosophical Review 519–547

H. Hart and T. Honoré , Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 9–10

L. Hand , ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58

R. Krieken , ‘The “Best Interests of the Child” and Parental Separation: on the “Civilizing of Parents”’ (2005) 68 Modern Law Review 25–48

J. Eekelaar , ‘The Emergence of Children's Rights’ (1986) 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 161–82

M. Solomon , ‘Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning’ (1992) 59 Philosophy of Science 439–55, 439–40

K. Brad Wray , ‘Science, Biases, and the Threat of Global Pessimism’ (2001) 68 Philosophy of Science S467–S478

J. Jackson , ‘The Effect of Legal Culture and Proof in Decisions to Prosecute’ (2004) 3 Law Probability and Risk 109–31

E. Grande , ‘Italian Criminal Justice: Borrowing and Resistance’ (2000) 48 American Journal of Comparative Law 227–59

D. Dwyer , ‘Legal Remedies for the Negligent Expert’ (2008) 12 Evidence and Proof 93–115

P. Roberts , ‘Tyres with a “Y”: An English Perspective on Kumho Tire and its Implications for the Admissibility of Expert Evidence’ (1999) 1 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 2, art. 5, www.bepress.com/ice/vol1/iss2/art5 (last accessed 14 December 2007)

J. Jolowicz , On Civil Procedure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 3

W. Twining , ‘Alternative to What? Theories of Litigation, Procedure and Dispute Settlement in Anglo-American Jurisprudence: Some Neglected Classics’ (1993) 56 Modern Law Review 380–92

P. Gottwald , ‘Simplified Civil Procedure in West Germany’ (1983) 31 American Journal of Comparative Law 687–701, at 687

S. Chiarloni , ‘Civil Justice and its Paradoxes: An Italian Perspective’, in A. Zuckerman , S. Chiarloni and P. Gottwald , Civil Justice in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) pp. 263–90, p. 265

M. Cappelletti and J. Perillo , Civil Procedure in Italy (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965), pp. 174–5

M. Damaška , ‘Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1083–106

B. Kaplan , A. Mehren and R. Schaefer , ‘Phases of German Civil Procedure I’ (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review 1193–268

P. Margot , ‘The Role of the Forensic Scientist in an Inquisitorial System of Justice’ (1998) 38 Science and Justice 71–3, 71

W. Twining , ‘Freedom of Proof and the Reform of Criminal Evidence’ (1997) 31 Israel Law Review 439–63

S. Landsman , ‘One Hundred Years of Rectitude: Medical Witnesses at the Old Bailey, 1717–1817’ (1998) 16 Law and History Review 445–94

J. Mnookin , ‘Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Expertise’ (2001) 87 Virginia Law Review 1723–1845

T. Ward , ‘Observers, Advisers, or Authorities? Experts, Juries and Criminal Responsibility in Historical Perspective’ (2001) 12 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 105–22.

T. Gallanis , ‘Legal History with 21st Century Tools: the English Reports on CD-ROM and Bracton on the Web’ (1999) 20 Journal of Legal History 109

J. Langbein , ‘Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 1–136.

T. Allibone , ‘The Club of the Royal College of Physicians, the Smeatonian Society of Civil Engineers and their Relationship to the Royal Society Club’ (1967) 22 Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 186–92.

S. Landsman , ‘Of Witches, Madmen, and Products Liability: An Historical Survey of the Use of Expert Testimony’ (1995) 13 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 131–57, at 141.

F. Freemon , ‘The Origin of the Medical Expert Witness: the Insanity of Edward Oxford’ (2001) 22 Journal of Legal Medicine 349–73.

A. Dickey , ‘The Province and Function of Assessors in English Courts33 Modern Law Review (1970) 494–507.

G. Steckley , ‘Collisions, Prohibitions, and the Admiralty Court in Seventeenth-Century London’ (2003) 21 Law and History Review 41–67 at fn. 69

G. Steckley , ‘Merchants and the Admiralty Court During the English Revolution’ (1978) 22 American Journal of Legal History 137–75.

J. Beuscher , ‘The Use of Experts by the Courts’ (1941) 54 Harvard Law Review 1105–27, 1118.

J. Spencer , ‘Court Experts and Expert Witnesses: Have We a Lesson to Learn from the French?’ (1992) 45 Current Legal Problems 213–36

R. Jackson , ‘The Incidence of Jury Trial during the Past Century’ (1937) 1 Modern Law Review 132–44.

J. Jolowicz , ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure’ (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 281–95, 283.

E. Check and D. Cyranoski , ‘Korean Scandal will have Global Fallout’ (2005) 438 Nature 1056–7

U. Deichmann and B. Müller-Hill , ‘The Fraud of Abderhalden's Enzymes’ (1998) 393 Nature 109–11

R. Pattenden , ‘Litigation Privilege and Expert Opinion Evidence’ (2000) 4 Evidence and Proof 213–45

D. Dwyer , ‘The Duties of Expert Witnesses of Fact and Opinion’ (2003) 7 Evidence and Proof 264–9.

W. Twining , ‘Some Scepticism About Some Scepticisms’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 99–164, pp. 120–2

G. Anscombe On Brute Facts’ (1958) 18 Analysis 69–72

R. Bailey Overcoming Veriphobia – Learning to Love Truth Again’ (2001) 49 British Journal of Educational Studies 159–72

J. Beardsley Proof of Fact in French Civil Procedure’ (1986) 34 American Journal of Comparative Law 459–86

F. Bex , H. Prakken , C. Reed and D. Walton Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations’ (2003) 11 Artificial Intelligence and Law 125–65

F. van den Braak Bex , S. Oostendorp , H. Prakken , B. Verheij and G. Vreeswijk Sense-making Software for Crime Investigation: How to Combine Stories and Arguments?’ (2007) 6 Law Probability and Risk 145–68

G Bower ., J. Black and T. Turner Scripts in Memory for Texts’ (1979) 11 Cognitive Psychology 177–220

R. Collingwood On the So-Called Idea of Causation’ (1937–8) 38 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 85–112

J Cooper ., E. Bennett and H. Sukel Complex Scientific Testimony: How Do Jurors Make Decisions?’ (1996) 20 Law and Human Behaviour 379–94

P. Corfield Power and the Professions in Britain 1700–1850 (London: Routledge, 1995)

C. Crawford Legalizing Medicine: Early Modern Legal Systems and the Growth of Medico-legal Knowledge’, in M. Clark and C. Crawford , Legal Medicine in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 89–116

M. Damaška Epistemology and Legal Regulation of Proof’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 117–30

M. Damaška Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure’ (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 506–89

I Dror ., D. Charlton and A. Peron Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications’ (2006) 156 Forensic Science International 74–8

N. Duxbury Jerome Frank and the Legacy of Legal Realism’ (1991) 18 Journal of Law and Society 175–205

D. Dwyer Beyond Autonomy: the Role of Dignity in “Biolaw”’ (2003) 23 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 319–31

D. Dwyer Closed Evidence, Reasonable Suspicion and Torture’ (2005) 9 Evidence and Proof 126–31

D. Dwyer Expert Evidence in the English Civil Courts, 1550–1800’ (2007) 28 Journal of Legal History 93–118

G. Edmond Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence’ (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 216–51

G. Edmond and D. Mercer Daubert and the Exclusionary Ethos: The Convergence of Corporate and Judicial Attitudes Towards the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Tort Litigation’ (2004) 26 Law and Policy 231–57

A. Eisen The Meanings and Confusion of Weberian “Rationality”’ (1978) 29 British Journal of Sociology 57–70

L. Epstein and G. King The Rules of Inference’ (2002) 69 University of Chicago Law Review 1–133

H. Erlanger Jury Research in America: Its Past and Future’ (1970) 4 Law and Society Review 345–70

M. Galanter The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts’ (2004) 1 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 459–570.

E. Gettier Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ (1963) 23 Analysis 121–3

T. Golan The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in the English Courtroom’ (1999) 12 Science in Context 7–34

A. Goldman Pathways to Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)

S. Haack Inquiry and Advocacy, Fallibilism and Finality: Culture and Inference in Science and Law’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 205–14

S. Haack Trial and Error: The Supreme Court's Philosophy of Science’ (2005) 95 American Journal of Public Health S66–S73

I. Hacking Experimentation and Scientific Realism’ (1982) 13 Philosophical Topics 71–87

N. Harvey and C. Harries Effects of Judges’ Forecasting on their Later Combination of Forecasts for the Same Outcome’ (2004) 20 International Journal of Forecasting 391–409

R Hastie ., D. Schkade and J. Payne A Study of Juror and Jury Judgments in Civil Cases: Deciding Liability for Punitive Damages’ (1998) 22 Law and Human Behaviour 287–314

R. Helmholz The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. I: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)

D. Hume Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), ed. P. Nidditch , 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)

J. Jackson The Effect of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Convergence, Divergence or Realignment?’ (2005) 68 Modern Law Review 737–64

S. Kalberg Max Weber's Types of Rationality’ (1980) 85 American Journal of Sociology 1145

M. King An Autopoietic Approach to the Problems Presented by Parental Alienation Syndrome’ (2002) 13 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 609–35

M. King and C. Thornhill Will the Real Niklas Luhmann Stand Up, Please? A Reply to John Mingers’ (2003) 51 Sociological Review 276–85

J. Langbein The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823–66

L. Laudan Truth, Error and Criminal Law – An Essay in Legal Epistemology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)

P. Legrand European Legal Systems are not Converging’ (1996) 45 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 52–81

J. Locke Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), ed. J. Yolton , 3rd edn (London: Dent, 1993)

F. McAuley Canon Law and the End of the Ordeal’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 473–513

H. Maturana and F. Varela Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980)

J. Mitnick From Neighbor-Witness to Judge of Proofs: The Transformation of the English Civil Juror’ (1988) 32 American Journal of Legal History 201–35

R. Mnookin Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy’ (1975) 39 Law and Contemporary Problems 226–93

D. Nelken Law and Knowledge / Law as Knowledge’ (2006) 15 Social Legal Studies 570–3

J. Oldham The Origins of the Special Jury’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 137–221

J. Paterson Trans-Science, Trans-Law and Proceduralisation’ (2003) 12 Social and Legal Studies 523–43.

J. Paterson and G. Teubner Changing Maps: Empirical Legal Autopoiesis’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies 451–86

W. Quine On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World’ (1975) 9 Erkenntnis 313–28

M. Redmayne Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)

C. Reed and Rowe , G. Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation’ (2005) 19 Argumentation 267–86

J. Resnik Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III’ (2000) 113 Harvard Law Review 924–1037

N. Rose and M. Valverde Governed by Law?’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies 541–53

A. Rubin Trial by Jury in Complex Civil Cases: Voice of Liberty or Verdict of Confusion?’ (1982) 462 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 87–103

B. Sales and D. Shuman Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2005)

S. Sclater and C. Piper Social Exclusion and the Welfare of the Child’ (2001) 28 Journal of Law and Society 409–29

B. Spencer Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts’ (2007) 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 305–29

E. Sunderland The Inefficiency of the American Jury’ (1915) 13 Michigan Law Review 302–16

P. Tillers Prejudice, Politics and Proof’ (1988) 86 Michigan Law Review 768–75

W. Twining Evidence and Legal Theory’ (1984) 47 Modern Law Review 261–83

W. Twining Hot Air in the Redwoods, A Sequel to the Wind in the Willows’ (1988) 86 Michigan Law Review 1523–47

W. Twining Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)

W. Twining Social Science and Diffusion of Law’ (2005) 32 Journal of Law and Society 203–40

W. Twining Taking Facts Seriously’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 14–34

G Cleve . ‘Somerset's Case and its Antecedents in Imperial Perspective’ (2006) 24 Law and History Review 601–46

N. Vidmar and R. Schuller Juries and Expert Evidence: Social Framework Testimony’ (1989) 52 Law and Contemporary Problems 133–76

T. Ward Experts, Juries and Witch-Hunts: From Fitzjames Stephen to Angela Cannings’ (2004) 31 Journal of Law and Society 369–86

H. Zeisel and S. Diamond ‘“Convincing Empirical Evidence” on the Six Member Jury’ (1974) 41 University of Chicago Law Review 281–95

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 343 *
Loading metrics...

Book summary page views

Total views: 105 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.