Evidence Assessment and Standards of Proof: a Messy Issue
Descargas
Resumen
The Article addresses three main questions. First: Why do some scholars and decision-makers take evidence assessment criteria as standards of proof and vice versa? The answer comes from the fact that some legal systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards; therefore jurists educated in different contexts tend to emphasize what they are more familiar with, and to assimilate to it what they are less familiar with. Second: Why do systems differ in those respects? Here the answer stems from the historical, institutional and procedural differences that explain why some systems are more concerned with assessment criteria and others with standards of proof. And third, assuming that both criteria and standards are necessary to legal decision-making about facts: How can a system work if it neglects one of these things? Here the Article argues that there is a functional connection between criteria and standards. The functional connection account is distinguished from a functional equivalence account, and some systems and jurisdictions are referred to in greater detail to support the functional connection claim.Palabras clave
Assessment of Evidence, Fact-finding, Functional Connection, Legal Proof, Standards of ProofDescargas
Citas
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(2), p. 483-511.
Allen, R.J. (1988). Idealization and Caricature in Comparative Scholarship. Northwestern University Law Review, 82(3), p. 785-807.
Allen, R.J. (1991). The Nature of Juridical Proof. Cardozo Law Review, 13, p. 373-422.
Allen, R.J. (2014). Burdens of Proof. Law, Probability and Risk, 13, p. 195-219.
Allen, R.J. et al. (1988). The German Advantage in Civil Procedure: A Plea for More Details and Fewer Generalities in Comparative Scholarship. Northwestern University Law Review, 82(3), p. 705-762.
Allen, R.J. and Pardo, M.S. (2007). The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence. The Journal of Legal Studies, 36(1), p. 107-140.
Allen, R.J. and Pardo, M.S. (2019). Relative Plausibility and Its Critics. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 23(1-2), p. 5-59.
Allen, R.J. and Stein, A. (2013). Evidence, Probability, and the Burden of Proof. Arizona Law Review, 55, p. 557-602.
Anderson, T., Schum, D. & Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of Evidence (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Barzun, C. (2008). Rules of Weight. Notre Dame Law Review, 83(5), p. 1957-2017.
Bayón, J.C. (2008). Epistemología, moral y prueba de los hechos: hacia un enfoque no benthamiano. Analisi e diritto, 2008, p. 15-34.
Bergeaud, A. (2010). Le droit à la preuve. L.G.D.J.
Bell, R.S. (1987). Decision Theory and Due Process: A Critique of the Supreme Court’s Lawmaking for Burdens of Proof. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, p. 557-585.
Bohlander, M. (2012). Principles of German Criminal Procedure. Hart Publishing.
Bredin, J.-D. (1996). Le doute et l’intime conviction. Droits, 23, p. 21-29.
Bouloc, B. (2004). La preuve en matière pénale. In C. Puigelier (ed.), La preuve (p. 43-56). Economica.
Bovino, A. (2005). Evidential Issues before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Sur. International Journal on Human Rights, 2, p. 56-79.
Caprioli, F. (2009). L’accertamento della responsabilità penale “oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio”. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, 52, p. 51-92.
Cartier, M. E. (2004). Brèves remarques sur la preuve devant la Cour pénale internationale. In C. Puigelier (ed.), La preuve (p. 57-72). Economica.
Castillo de la Torre, F. (2009). Evidence, Proof and Judicial Review in Cartel Cases. World Competition, 32(4), p. 505-578.
Clermont, K. & Sherwin, E. (2002). A Comparative View of Standards of Proof. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 50, p. 243-275.
Cohen, L.J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable. Clarendon Press.
Coloma, R. (2012). ¿Realmente importa la sana crítica? Revista Chilena de Derecho, 39(3), p. 753-781.
Coloma, R. and Agüero, C. (2014). Lógica, ciencia y experiencia en la valoración de la prueba. Revista Chilena de Derecho, 41, p. 673-703.
Combs, N.A. (2010). Fact-Finding Without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions. Cambridge University Press.
Cumiz, J.A. (2016). El estándar de prueba “más allá de toda duda razonable” en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Penal Internacional. Revista de Derecho Penal y Procesal Penal, 2016(1), p. 5-21.
Cummins, R. (1975). Functional Analysis. The Journal of Philosophy, 72, p. 741-765.
Dahlman, C. (2015). The Felony Fallacy Law. Probability and Risk, 14, p. 229-241.
Damaška, M. (1986). The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process. Yale University Press.
Damaška, M. (1997a). Evidence Law Adrift. Yale University Press.
Damaška, M. (1997b). The Uncertain Fate of Evidentiary Transplants: Anglo-American and Continental Experiments. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 45, p. 839-852.
Damaška, M. (2003). Epistemology and Legal Regulation of Proof. Law, Probability and Risk, 2, p. 117-130.
Damaška, M. (2018). Evaluation of Evidence: Pre-Modern and Modern Approaches. Cambridge University Press.
Della Torre, J. (2014). Il lungo cammino della giurisprudenza italiana sull’“oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio”. Diritto Penale Contemporaneo (https://www.penalecontemporaneo.it), June 20, 2014.
Delmas-Marty, M. (1996). La preuve pénale. Droits, 23, p. 53-65.
Ehrenberg, K.M. (2016). The Functions of Law. Oxford University Press.
Ferrajoli, L. (1989). Diritto e ragione: Teoria del garantismo penale. Laterza.
Ferrer, J. (2007). La valoración racional de la prueba. Marcial Pons.
Fodor, J. (1985). Fodor’s Guide to Mental Representation. Mind, 94, p. 76-100.
Friedman, L.M. (1975). The Legal System: A Social Science Perspective. Russell Sage.
Gascón, M. (2010). Los hechos en el derecho: Bases argumentales de la prueba (3rd ed.). Marcial Pons.
Gaskins, R. (2016). The Legal Characterization of Facts at the International Criminal Court. In E. Feteris et al. (eds.), Legal Argumentation and the Rule of Law (p. 59-68). Eleven International Publishing.
Goldman, A. (2002). Quasi-Objective Bayesianism and Legal Evidence. Jurimetrics, 42, p. 237-260.
González, J. (2006). La fundamentación de las sentencias y la sana crítica. Revista Chilena de Derecho, 33(1), p. 93-107.
González Lagier, D. (2013). Quaestio facti: Ensayos sobre prueba, causalidad y acción. Fontamara.
Green, L. (1998). The Functions of Law. Cogito, 12(2), p. 117-124.
Haack, S. (2014). Evidence Matters: Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law. Cambridge University Press.
Hans, V. & Germain, C. (2011). The French Jury at a Crossroads. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 86(2), p. 737-768.
Iacoviello, F.M. (2006). Lo standard probatorio dell’al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio e il suo controllo in Cassazione. Cassazione penale, 46, p. 3869-3884.
Jackson, J.D. & Summers, S.J. (2012). The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge University Press.
Kaplow, L. (2012). Burden of Proof. The Yale Law Journal, 121, p. 738-859.
Langbein, J.H. (1985). The German Advantage in Civil Procedure. The University of Chicago Law Review, 52(4), p. 823-866.
Langbein, J.H. (1988). Trashing “The German Advantage”. Northwestern University Law Review, 82(3), p. 763-784.
Laudan, L. (2005). Por qué un estándar de prueba subjetivo y ambiguo no es un estándar. Doxa, 28, p. 95-113.
Laudan, L. (2006). Truth, Error, and Criminal Law: An Essay in Legal Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.
Lillquist, E. (2002). Recasting Reasonable Doubt: Decision Theory and the Virtues of Variability. U. C. Davis Law Review, 36, p. 85-197.
Lluch, X.A. (2012). La dosis de la prueba: entre el common law y el civil law. Doxa, 35, p. 173-200.
Mackor, A.R. (2016). Improving Judicial Argumentation about Evidence in Dutch Unus Testis Cases. In E. Feteris et al. (eds.), Legal Argumentation and the Rule of Law (p. 111-122). Eleven International Publishing.
Novak, M. (2016). Arguing for Certainty in Criminal Decision-Making and the Rule of Law. In E. Feteris et al. (eds.), Legal Argumentation and the Rule of Law (p. 147-157). Eleven International Publishing.
Padoa-Schioppa, A. (ed.) (1987). The Trial Jury in England, France, Germany 1700-1900. Duncker & Humblot.
Padoa-Schioppa, A. (1994). La giuria penale in Francia. LED.
Padoa-Schioppa, A. (2003). Italia ed Europa nella storia del diritto. Il Mulino.
Parsons, T. (1951). The Social System. The Free Press.
Paúl, Á. (2012). In Search of the Standards of Proof Applied by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Revista Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos, 55, p. 57-102.
Picinali, F. (2013). Two Meanings of “Reasonableness”: Dispelling the “Floating” Reasonable Doubt. The Modern Law Review, 76(5), p. 845-875.
Putnam, H. (1981). Reason, Truth and History. Cambridge University Press.
Putnam, H. (1995). Are Moral and Legal Values Made or Discovered?. Legal Theory, 1, p. 5-19.
Redmayne, M. (1999). Standards of Proof in Civil Litigation. The Modern Law Review, 62, p. 167-195.
Redmayne, M. (2003). Objective Probability and the Assessment of Evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 2, p. 275-294.
Roberts, P. & Zuckerman, A. (2010). Criminal Evidence (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Schweizer, M. (2014). Comparing Holistic and Atomistic Evaluation of Evidence. Law, Probability and Risk, 13, p. 65-89.
Schweizer, M. (2016). The Civil Standard of Proof—What Is It, Actually? The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 20(3), p. 217-234.
Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Taruffo, M. (1992). La prova dei fatti giuridici. Giuffrè.
Taruffo, M. (2003a). Rethinking the Standards of Proof. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 51, p. 659-677.
Taruffo, M. (2003b). Algunos comentarios sobre la valoración de la prueba. Discusiones, 3, p. 81-97.
Taruffo, M. (2009). La semplice verità: Il giudice e la costruzione dei fatti. Laterza.
Tillers, P. & Green, E.D. (eds.) (1988). Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Tribe, L.H. (1971). Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process. Harvard Law Review, 84(6), p. 1329-1393.
Tuzet, G. (2020). Assessment Criteria or Standards of Proof?: An Effort in Clarification. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(1), p. 91-109.
Ubertis, G. (2013). Razionalismo processuale e verità. Il giusto processo civile, 1(13), p. 325-333.
Vázquez, C. (ed.) (2013). Estándares de prueba y prueba científica: ensayos de epistemología jurídica. Marcial Pons.
Verheij, B. et al. (2016). Arguments, Scenarios and Probabilities: Connections Between Three Normative Frameworks for Evidential Reasoning. Law, Probability and Risk, 15, p. 35-70.
Whitman, J. (2008). The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. Yale University Press.
Wright, L. (1973). Functions. The Philosophical Review, 82, p. 139-168.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i2.22480Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Giovanni Tuzet
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.