Taking the Evolution of the Standards of Proof for a Criminal Conviction Seriously
Descargas
Resumen
The article offers a diachronic and comparative analysis of different standards of proof for a criminal conviction. The first part focuses on the attempt of medieval and early modern Roman-canon systems to clarify this type of rule through a network of legal proofs. The second part analyses the origins of the main standards for a criminal conviction used today: moral certainty, beyond reasonable doubt and intime conviction. The final part looks to the future, asking whether traditional decision-making criteria should be maintained or replaced by new ones based on the principles of contemporary epistemology.
Palabras clave
standard of proof, reasonable doubt, moral certainty, intime conviction, Legal ProofCitas
Abbagnano (1998). Dizionario di filosofia. Utet.
Accatino, D. (2011). Certezas, dudas y propuesta en torno al estándar de la prueba penal. Revista de Derecho de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, 37, p. 483-511.
Aguilera, E. (2021). Dudando de las dudas sobre la formulación de estándares de prueba jurídicos (razonablemente) objetivos. In C. Vázquez (Ed.), Ciencia y Justicia. El conocimiento experto en la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (pp. 403-452). SCJN.
Ala, R. (1829). Pratica criminale (Vol. II). Giunchi e Comp.
Ala, R. (1839). Criminalis juris et praxis instituta usi etiam forensi accommodata (Vol. I). Mugnoz.
Alcácer Guirao, R. (2021). Algunas dudas sobre la duda razonable. Prueba de descargo, estándares de prueba e in dubio pro reo. Revista Electrónica de Ciencia Penal y Criminología, 23-09, p. 1-47.
Alessi Palazzolo, G. (1979). Prova legale e pena. La crisi del sistema tra Evo Medio e moderno.
Jovene. Allard, A. (1868). Histoire de la justice criminelle au seizième siècle. Libraire-éditeur.
Allen, R.J. (2013). Los estándares de prueba y los límites del análisis jurídico. In C. Vázquez (Ed.), Estándares de prueba y prueba científica (pp. 41-64). Marcial Pons.
Allen, R.J. (2014). Burdens of proof. Law, Probability and Risk, 13(3-4), p. 195-219.
Allen, R. and Pardo M. (2007), The Problematic Value of Mathematical Models of Evidence. Journal of Legal Studies, 36(1), p. 107-140.
Allen, R. and Pardo M.S (2019). Relative plausibility and its critics. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 23(1-2), p. 5-59.
Ambos, K. (2023). “Intime conviction” in Germany. Conceptual foundations, historical development and current meaning. Quaestio facti, 4, p. 167-189.
Anderson, T., Schum D. and Twining, W. (2005). Analysis of Evidence (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Angles, J. (1587). Flores theologicarum quaestionum in secundum librum Sententiarum. Pars I. Stephanum Michaelem.
Antonino da Firenze (1740). Summa theologica. Pietro Ballerini.
Arrivabene, F. (1814). Della certezza morale nei giudicj penali. Nicolò Bettoni.
Barbacovi, F. V. (1820). Degli argomenti ed indizi nei giudizi criminali. Società tipografica dei classici italiani.
Baldo degli Ubaldi (1578). In Quartum et Quintum Codicis Libr. Venice.
Balkin, J.M. (2017). The Three Laws of Robotics in the Age of Big Data. Ohio State Law Journal, 78(5), p. 1217-1241.
Baron (2022). Certainty, in The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/certainty.
Bartolo da Sassoferrato (1562). In Ius Universum Civile, Commentaria: Digestum veterum. Froben.
Bartolomeo da Saliceto (1578). In Tertium & Quartum Codicis Libros. Aquilae.
Basilico, H. (1691). Decisiones Criminales. Thypographia Joannis Philippi Cecchi.
Beccaria (1880). On Crimes and Punishments. In J.A. Farrer, Crimes and Punishments. Including a New Translation of Beccaria’s “Dei delitti e delle pene”. Chatto & Windus.
Benedict XIV (1778). Sanctissimi domini nostri Benedicti Papae XIV Bullarium tomus tertius: in quo continentur constitutiones, epistolae aliaque edita ab exitu anni MDCCXLVIII usque ad totum pontificatus duodecimum seu ad annum MDCCLII: cum appendice et supplement. Ioannis Gatti.
Bentham, J. (1827). Rationale of Judicial Evidence (Vol. I). Hunt and Clarke.
Best, W.M. (1849). A Treatise on the Principles of Evidence and Practice as to Proof in Court of Common Law. Sweet.
Bianchi, M. (1554). Tractatus de indiciis homicidii ex proposito comissi & de alijs indicijs homicidij et furti ad legem finalem ff. de quaestionibus. In Tractatus Universi Iuris, Duce, et Auspice Gregorius XIII, in unum congesti (Vol. XI, Part. I, 260). Venice.
Biel, G. (1574). Commentarius in Quartum Librum Sententiarum, Bozolam. Bossi, E. (1566). Tractatus varii, Jacobi Junctae.
Blackstone, W. (1770). Commentaries on the Laws of England (Vol. IV). Clarendon Press. Briganti, T. (1842). Pratica criminale (Vol. I). Gabriele Marotta.
Broun, K. S., Kaye, D. H., Dix, G. E., Imwinkelried, E. J., Mosteller, R. P., Roberts, E. F. and Swift, E. (2014). McCormick on Evidence (7th ed.). West Academic Publishing.
Brugnoli, G. (1846). Della certezza e prova criminale col confronto di varie legislazioni d’Europa ed in specie d’Italia. Carlo Vincenzi.
Caprioli, F. (2009). L’accertamento della responsabilità penale “oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio”. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, 52(1), p. 51-92.
Caprioli, F (2017). Verità e giustificazione nel processo penale. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 3(1), p. 317-341.
Carlizzi, G. (2018). Libero convincimento e ragionevole dubbio nel processo penale. Bonomo editore.
Carmignani, G. (1852). Scritti inediti (Vol. IV). Giuseppe Giusti.
Caramuel Lobkowitz, I. (1675). Theologiae moralis fundamentalis (Lib. IV). Officina Anissoniana.
Carpzov, B. (1684). Pratica nova imperialis saxonica rerum criminalium, Balthas. Christophori Wustii.
Carnelutti, F. (1963). Verso la riforma del processo penale. Morano.
Catalano, E.M. (2016). Ragionevole dubbio e logica della decisione. Giuffrè.
Cherubini, P. (2024). Guida al ragionamento probatorio con le reti bayesiane. Giuffrè.
Claro, G. (1586). Opera omnia sive practica civilis atque criminalis. Augustae Taurinorum.
Clermont, K.M. (2013). Standard of Decision in Law. Carolina Academic Press.
Cohen, L.J. (1977). The Probable and the Provable. Clarendon Press.
Cohen., L.J. (1998). Introduzione alla filosofia dell’induzione e della probabilità. Giuffrè.
Concina, D. (1761). Della storia del probabilismo e del rigorismo. Simone Occhi.
Conti, C. (2020). Il BARD paradigma di metodo: legalizzare il convincimento senza riduzionismi aritmetici. Diritto penale e processo, 6, p. 829-842.
Contigiani, N. (2007). Il processo penale pontificio. Tra ancoraggi inquisitori e spettro riformista (1831-1858). Rivista di storia del diritto italiano, 80, p. 189-314.
Contissa, G., Lasagni, G., Sartor, G. (2019). Quando a decidere in materia penale sono (anche) algoritmi e IA: alla ricerca di un rimedio effettivo. Diritto di internet, 4, p. 619-634.
Cordero, F. (2012). Procedura penale (9th ed.). Giuffrè.
Dahlman C. (2018). Determining the base rate for guilt. Law, Probability and Risk, 17(1), p. 15-28.
Dahlman C. (2020). De-Biasing Legal Fact-Finders With Bayesian Thinking. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), p. 1115-1131.
Dahlman C. (2024). What does it mean to be «plausible»? Quaestio facti, 7, p. 91-102.
Dahlman, C. and Kolfaath, E. (2021). The Problem of the Prior in Criminal Trials. In C. Dahlman, A. Stein and G. Tuzet (Eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law (pp. 287-300). Oxford University Press.
Damaška, M. (2019). Evaluation of Evidence. Pre-Modern and Modern Approaches. Cambridge University Press.
Damaška, M. (2022). The future of free proof in criminal cases. In P. Bárd (Ed.). Liber Amicorum Karoly Bard (pp. 197-204, Vol. II). L’Harmattan.
Daniele, M. (2009). Regole di esclusione e regole di valutazione della prova. Giappichelli.
Deciani, T. (1613). Tractatus criminalis (Vol. I). Ioannis Bringeri.
De Coras (1668). In aliquot titulos & capita legum Secundi ac tertii tomi Pandectarum. Antonium Vicentium.
De Damhouder, J. (1556). Praxis rerum criminalium. Antwerp.
Dei Vecchi, D. (2022). Prueba sin convicción en su justa medida. Doxa, 45, p. 337-373.
Dalia, G. (2018). Convincimento giudiziale e ragionevole dubbio. Wolters Kluwer-Cedam.
Della Torre, J. (2014). Il lungo cammino della giurisprudenza italiana sull’“oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio”. Diritto penale contemporaneo. https://archiviodpc.dirittopenaleuomo.org/d/3161-il-lungo-cammino-della-giurisprudenza-italiana-sull-oltre-ogni-ragionevole-dubbio
Della Torre, J. (2015). Standard di prova e condanna penale: una ricostruzione metateorica e metagiurisprudenziale. Materiali per una storia della cultura giuridica, 45(2), p. 369-492.
Della Torre, J. (2019). La giustizia penale negoziata in Europa. Miti, realtà e prospettive. Wolter-Kluwer.
Della Torre, J. (2023a). Gli standard probatori per la condanna penale tra storia e attualità. La legislazione penale. https://www.lalegislazionepenale.eu/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Della-Torre-LP-1.pdf
Della Torre, J. (2023b). Standard probatori, efficienza e giustizia penale. Politica del diritto, 54(3), pp. 327-364.
Della Torre, J. (2024). La ragionevole previsione di condanna alla prova della realtà giudiziaria. La legislazione penale. https://www.lalegislazionepenale.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Della-Torre_LP_.pdf.
Delmas-Marty, M. (1996). La preuve pénale. Droits, 23, p. 53-65.
De Lugo, J. (1696). Disputationes Scholasticae et morales. Petri Borde, Joan & Petri Arnaud.
De Rosa, C.A. (1680). Decretorum M.C. Praxis Criminalis. Hyacinthum Passarum.
Descartes, R. (1667). Les Principes de la Philosophie. Henry Le Gras.
Dezza, E. (2013). Lezioni di storia del processo penale. Pavia University Press.
Dripps, D.A. (1987). The Constitutional Status of the Reasonable Doubt Rule. California Law Review, 75, p. 1665-1718.
Duce, M. (2024). Plea bargaining and the risk of wrongful convictions: a comparative overview. In M. Langer et al. (eds.), Research Handbook on Plea Bargaining and Criminal Justice (pp. 278-297). Elgar.
Ede, R. and Ford, C. (2004). The Law Society, Study of The Laws of Evidence in Criminal Proceedings throughout the European Union, Summary Report. https://www.scribd.com/document/144338382/The-Law-Society-Study-of-the-laws-of-evidence-in-criminal-proceedings-throughout-the-European-Union-Summary-ReportOctober-2004
Eggleston, R. (2004). Prova, conclusione probatoria e probabilità (2nd ed.). Giuffrè.
Esmein, A. (1882). Histoire de la procédure criminelle en France et spécialement de la procédure inquisitoire, depuis le XIIe siècle jusqu’à nos jours. Librarires - éditeurs.
Esnard, C., Grihom, M. J. and Leturmy, L. (2015). L’intime conviction : incidences sur le jugement des jurés et magistrates. Rapport Final. 8 Juillet 2015. http://www.gip-recherche-justice.fr/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Rapport-Final-Intime-Conviction.pdf
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice [CEPEJ] (2018). European ethical Charter on the use of Artificial Intelligence in judicial systems and their environment. https://rm.coe.int/ethical-charter-en-for-publication-4-december-2018/16808f699c
European Court of Human Rights [ECtHR] (1950). European Convention on Human Rights. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG
Farinacci, P. (1607). Consilia sive responsa atque Decisiones causarum Criminalium. Horatij Cardon.
Farinacci, P. (1616). Praxis et theorica criminalis, Horatij Cardon.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2004). Prova e verità nel diritto. Il Mulino.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2007). La valutazione razionale della prova. Giuffrè.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2021a). Proven Facts, Beliefs, and Reasoned Verdicts. In C. Dahlman, A. Stein and G. Tuzet (eds.), Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law (pp. 40-52), Oxford University Press.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2021b). Prueba sin convicción. Estándares de prueba y debido proceso. Marcial Pons.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. and Tuzet, G. (2018). Sulla necessità degli standard di prova per la giustificazione delle decisioni giudiziali. Diritto & Questioni pubbliche, 2, p. 455-472.
Ferrua, P. (2020). Onere della prova, regola di giudizio e standard probatorio. Cassazione penale, 60, p. 2639-2649.
Feuerbach, P.J.A. (1813). Betrachtungen über das Geschwornen-Gericht. Philipp Krüll.
Filangieri, G. (1806). La scienza della legislazione (Vol. I). Santini.
Finklestein M.O. and Fairley W.B. (1970). A Bayesian approach to Identification Evidence. Harward Law Review, 83(3), 489-517.
Fiorelli, P. (2023). La tortura giudiziaria nel diritto comune. Giuffrè.
Fortunato, S.J. (1996). Instructing on Reasonable Doubt after Victor v. Nebraska: A Trial Judge’s Certain Thoughts on Certainty. Villanova Law Review, 41, p. 365-431.
Franklin, J. (2001). The Science of Conjecture. Evidence and Probability before Pascal. John Hopkins University.
Friedman, R.D. (1997). Answering the Bayesioskeptical Challenge. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 1, p. 276-291.
Friedman, R.D. (2000). A Presumption of Innocence, Not of Even Odds. Stanford Law Review, 52(4), p. 873-587.
Gail, A. (1613). Observationum practicarum Imperialis Camerae. Petrum de Farris.
Garbolino (2014). Probabilità e logica della prova. Giuffrè.
Garlati, L. (2004). Il diabolico intreccio. Reo convinto e indizi indubitati nel commento di Bartolomeo da Saliceto (C. 4.19.25): alle radici di un problema. In O. Condorelli (ed.), Panta rei. Studi dedicati a Manlio Bellomo (pp. 387-419, Vol. II). Il Cigno Edizioni.
Gerson, J. (1706). Joannis Gersoni Opera Omnia (t. I). Sumptibus Societatis.
Giuliani, G. (1840). Istituzioni di diritto criminale col commento della legislazione gregoriana. Viarchi.
Glaser (1883). Beiträge zur Lehre vom Bewies im Strafprozess. Duncker und Humblot.
González Lagier, L. (2020). ¿Es posible formular un estándar de prueba preciso y objetivo? Algunas dudas desde un enfoque argumentativo de la prueba. Revista Telemática de Filosofía del Derecho, 23, p. 79-97.
Greenleaf, S. (1842). A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (Vol. I). Charles C. Little & James Brown.
Guérin, M.C. (2015). Intime conviction et doute. Au-delà d’une antinomie apparente…Ce que révèe leur étude comparée. Annales Médico-psychologiques, 173, p. 610-614.
Haack, S. (2014). Evidence Matters, Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law. Cambridge University Press.
Hale, M. (1778). History of the Pleas of the Crown (Vol. I). George Wilson.
Hamer, D. (2007). The Presumption of Innocence and Reverse Burdens: A Balancing Act. Cambridge Law Journal, 66(1), p. 142-171.
Hélie, F. (1867). Traité de l’instruction criminelle (Vol. VIII). Henri Plon.
Hélie, F. (1870). Des délits et des peines par Beccaria. Duexiéme edition. Avec une introduction et un commentaire Par M. Fausin Hélie. Gaillaumin.
Ho, H.L. (2008). A Philosophy of Evidence Law. Justice in the Search for Truth. Oxford University Press.
Human Rights Committee. United Nations (2007). General comment no. 32. Article 14: right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/32 of 23 August 2007. https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2FGC%2F32&Lang=en
Iacoviello, F.M. (2006). Lo “standard probatorio dell’“al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio” e il suo controllo in cassazione. Cassazione penale, p. 3869-3884.
Iacoviello, F.M. (2023). La Cassazione penale. Fatto, diritto e motivazione (2nd ed.). Giuffrè.
Incampo, A. and Scalfati, A. (eds.) (2017). Giudizio penale e ragionevole dubbio. Cacucci.
International Criminal Court [ICC] (2021). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/2024-05/Rome-Statute-eng.pdf
Jellema, H. (2023). (Im)probable stories: combining Bayesian and explanation-based accounts of rational criminal proof. University of Groningen. https://doi.org/10.33612/diss.563508244.
Judicial College (2023). The Crown Court Compendium. Part I: Jury and Trial Management and Summing Up. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Crown-Court-Compendium-Part-IJuly-2024.pdf
Kadane J. and Schum D.A. (1996), A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence. Wiley.
Kaye, D.H. (1999). Clarifying the burden of persuasion: what Bayesian decision rules do and do not do. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 3(1), p. 1-28.
Keane, A and McKeown, P. (2019). Time to Abandon “Beyond Reasonable Doubt” and “Sure”: The Case for a New Direction on the Criminal Standard and how it should be used. Criminal Law Review 2019, 50(6), p. 505-527.
Langbein, J. (1974). Prosecuting Crime in the Renaissance. England, Germany, France. Harvard University Press.
Langbein, J. (2003). The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford University Press.
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. Cambridge University Press.
Le Brun de La Rochette, C. (1611). Le Procès criminel divisé en deux livres (Vol. II). Pierre Calles.
Leclerc, H. (1995). L’intime conviction du juge: norme démocratique de la preuve. Le for intérieur, p. 206-213.
Lempert, R. (2003). La nuova dottrina delle prove: un’analisi della formazione della prova concludente. In P. Tillers and E.D. Green (eds.), L’inferenza probabilistica nel diritto delle prove. Usi e limiti del bayesianesimo (pp. 91-155). Giuffré.
Levy, J. P. (1939). La Hiérarchie des preuves dans le droit savant du Moyen-Age, depuis la Renaissance du droit romain jusqu’à la fin du XIVe siècle. Librairie du Recueil Sirey.
Lillquist, E. (2005). Absolute Certainty and the Death Penalty. American Criminal Law Review, 42(1), p. 45-91.
Lucchini, L. (1895). Elementi di procedura penale. Barbera.
Lupária, L. (2021). Notazioni controintuitive su intelligenza artificiale e libero convincimento. In Intelligenza artificiale, giurisdizione penale ed etica del giudizio (pp. 113-122). Giuffrè.
Makor, A.R (2024). Risks of Incorrent Use of Probabilities in Court and What to Do about Them. In A. Placani and S. Broadhead (eds.), Risk and Responsibility in Context (pp. 99-108). Routledge.
Mackor, A.R., Jellema, H. and van Koppen, P.L. (2021). Explanation-Based Approaches to Reasoning about Evidence and Proof in Criminal Trials. In B. Brozek, J. Hage and N. Vincent (eds.), Law and Mind: A Survey of Law and the Cognitive Sciences (pp. 431-470). Cambridge University Press.
Martinon, J. (1663). Disputationes theologicae (Vol. II). Sebastianum Cramoisy.
Mascardi, G. (1585). De probationibus (Vol. I, Sigif ). Feyerabendij.
Mavidal, M.J. and Laurent, M.E. (Eds.) (1885), Archives Parlamentaires de 1787 a 1860, Recueil Complet des Débats Législatifs et Politiques des Chambres Françaises, Première Série (Vol. XXII). Paul Dupont.
Mazza, O. (2012). Il ragionevole dubbio nella toeria della decisione. Criminalia, p. 357-371.
Mazza, O. (2025). Distopia del processo artificiale. Archivio penale web, 1. https://archiviopenale.it/File/DownloadArticolo?codice=36e0a0e4-7576-4379-a107-a31292613919&idarticolo=46845
McKeown, P. (2022). Dreaded questions, doubtful answers & the trouble with ‘sure’. NewLawJournal, 7989. https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/dreaded-questions-doubtful-answers-the-trouble-withsure-
Medina, F. B. (1580). Expositio in prima secundae Angelici Doctoris d. Thomae Aquinatis. Petrum Dehuchinum.
Mittermaier, C. J. A. (1834). Die Lehre vom Beweise im deutschen Strafprozesse nach Fortbildung durch Gerichtsgebrauch und deutsche Gesetzbücher in Vergleichung mit den Ansichten des englischen und französischen Strafverfahrens. Johann Wilhelm Heyer.
Mittermaier, C. J. A. (1850). Trattato della pruova in materia penale. Giuseppe Carluccio.
Mittermaier, C. J. A. (1851). Il processo orale accusatorio e per giurati secondo le varie legislazioni. Stefano Calderini e comp. – Nicola Zanichelli e comp.
Mittermaier, C. J. A. (1858). Teoria della prova nel processo penale. Francesco Sanvito.
Morano, A. A. (1975). A re-examination of the Development of the Reasonable Doubt Rule. Boston University Law Review, 55(3), p. 507-529.
Nance, D. A. (2016). The Burden of Proof. Discriminatory Power, Weight of Evidence, and Tenacity of Belief. Cambridge University Press.
Neri, R. (2024). Judging Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt: A Logic and Epistemological Rule. Quaestio Facti, 7, p. 43-68.
Nieva Fenoll, J. (2010). La valoración de la prueba. Marcial Pons.
Nieva Fenoll, F. (2020). Carga de la prueba y estándares de prueba: dos reminiscencias del pasado. Estudios de Derecho, p. 119-148. https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.esde.v77n170a05
Nobili, M. (1974). Il principio deli libero convincimento del giudice. Giuffrè.
Nobili, M. (2004). Esiti, errori, arbitrii dietro un’illustre formula: gli ultimi trent’anni. In Il libero convincimento del giudice penale. Vecchie e nuove esperienze (33-59). Giuffrè.
Padoa-Schioppa, A. (1999). Sur la conscience du juge dans le ius commune. In J.-M. Carbasse and L. Depambour-Tarride (Eds.), La Conscience du juge dans la tradition juridique européenne (pp. 95-129). Press Universitaires De France.
Pagano, F. M. (1824). Principj del codice penale e logica de’ probabili. Luca Marotta.
Pardo, M. S. (2023). What Makes Evidence Sufficient?. Arizona Law Review, 65, p. 431-478.
Patuzzi, J. V. (1790). Ethica christiana sive Theologia moralis (Vol. I). Remondini.
Penim Pinheiro, J. (2021). Princípio in dubio pro reo - considerações gerais. Julgar Online. https://julgar.pt/principio-in-dubio-pro-reo-consideracoes-gerais/
Picinali, F. (2012). Structuring Inferential Reasoning in Criminal Fact Finding: An Analogical Theory. Law, Probability and Risk, 11(2-3), p. 197-223.
Picinali, F. (2015). The Threshold Lies in the Method: Instructing jurors about reasoning beyond reasonable doubt. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 19(3), p. 139-153.
Picinali, F. (2022). Justice In-Between. A Study of Intermediate Criminal Verdicts. Oxford University Press.
Pierro, G. (2011). Accertamento del fatto e colpevolezza al di oltre di ogni ragionevole dubbio. Aracne.
Poli, R. (2023). Prova e convincimento giudiziale del fatto. Giappichelli.
Poullain-Duparc, A.M. (1771). Principe du droit français, suivant les maximes de Bretagne (Vol. XI). François Avatar.
Pradel J. (1985). Le déroulement du procès pénal français (aperçus comparatifs avec le droit canadien). Revue générale de droit, 16(3), p. 575-590.
Pradel J. (2016). Droit pénal comparé (4th ed.). Dalloz.
Prakken, H., Bex, F., Mackor, A. R. (2020). Models of Rational Proof in Criminal Law. Topics in Cognitive Science, 12(4), p. 1053-1067.
Pufendorf, S. (1759). De Jure Naturæ et Gentium. Officina Knochiana.
Quattrocolo, S. (2020). Artificial Intelligence, Computational Modelling and Criminal Proceedings. A Framework for a European Legal Discussion. Springer.
Raynaldi, G. D. (1735). Obsevationum criminalium, civilium, & Mixtarum, Liber II, Observ. Typographia Balleoniana.
Richard, J. (2017). L’intime conviction du juge en matière criminelle. [Doctoral Thesis. Université Montpellier] https://theses.hal.science/tel-01610334v1/file/65991_RICHARD_2017_archivage.pdf
Roberts, P. (2011). Does Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights Require Reasoned Verdicts in Criminal Trials?. Human Rights Law Review, 11(2), p. 213-235.
Roberts, P. (2014). Loss of Innocence in Common Law Presumptions. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 8, p. 317-336.
Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A. (2022). Criminal Evidence (3th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Romagnosi, G.D. (1874). Cenni sui sistemi della convinzione intima e delle prove legali, e sul calcolo degli indizi. In Opere di G.D. Romagnosi (Vol. VII, pp. 665-669). Giuseppe Pedone – Giuseppe Marghieri.
Rosoni (1995). Quae singula non prosunt collecta iuvant. La teoria della prova indiziaria nell’età medievale e moderna. Giuffrè.
Rovito, S. (1634). Decisiones Supremorum Tribunalium Regni Neapolitani. Iacobum Gassarum.
Saltzburg, S. A. and Capra, D.J. (2018). American Criminal Procedure. Cases and Commentary (11th ed.). West Academic Publishing.
Sanchez, T. (1622). Operis moralis in praecepta decalogi (Vol. II). Martinum Nutium.
Saraceno P. (1940). La decisione sul fatto incerto nel processo penale. Cedam.
Schum D. A. (1994). The Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning. Northwestern University Press.
Shapiro, B. J. (1991). Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause. University of California Press.
Shapiro, B. J. (2009). Changing Language, Unchanging Standard: From “Satisfied Conscience” to “Moral Certainty” and “Beyond Reasonable Doubt”. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 17(2), p. 261-280.
Shapiro, B. J. (2012). Beyond Reasonable Doubt: The Evolution of a Concept. In Y. Batsaki et al. (Eds.), Fictions of Knowledge (pp. 19-39). Palgrave Macmillan.
Shapiro, B. J. (2014). ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’: The Neglected Eighteenth-Century Context. Law and Humanities, 8(1), p. 19-52.
Shapiro, B. J. (2022). The Problem of Certainty and the Changing Status of Probable Proofs. Philosophical Inquiries, 10(2), p. 117-137.
Shapiro, J.A. and Muth K.T. (2021). Al di là di ogni ragionevole dubbio: le giurie non lo capiscono. Criminalia, p. 53-69.
Sheppard, S. (2003), The Metamorphoses of Reasonable Doubt: How Changes in the Burden of Proof Have Weakened the Presumption of Innocence. Notre Dame Law Review, 78(4), p. 1165-1249.
Shüssler, R. (2009). Jean Gerson, Moral Certainty and the Renaissance of Ancient Scepticism. Renaissance Studies, 23, p. 445-462.
Shüssler, R. (2019). The Debate on Probable Opinions in the Scholastic Tradition. Brill.
Sinistrari (1754). Formularium criminale. Pars II. Caroli Giannini.
Smith (1748). The Britons and Saxons Not Converted to Popery. James Bettenham.
Smith, O.K.H. (2022). The beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof: Juror understanding and reform. The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 26(4), p. 291-308.
Solan, L.M. (1999). Refocusing the Burden of Proof in Criminal Cases: Some Doubt about Reasonable Doubt. Texas Law Review, 78, p. 105-147.
Starkie, T. (1826). A Practical Treatise of the Law of Evidence, and Digest of Proofs, in Civil and Criminal Proceedings (Vol. I). West and Lilly.
Stella, F. (2003). Giustizia e modernità. La protezione dell’innocente e la tutela delle vittime (3th ed.). Giuffrè.
Stein, A. (2005). Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Suarez, F. (1741). De Divina Gratia (Vol. VIII). Balleoniana.
Summers, S.J. (2023). The Epistemic Ambitions of the Criminal Trial: Truth, Proof, and Rights. Quaestio facti, 4, p. 249-272.
Stephen (1883). A History of the Criminal Law of England (Vol. I). MacMillan.
Taroni, F., Atiken, C., Garbolino,P., Biedermann, A. (2006). Bayesian Networks and Probabilistic Inference in Forensic Science (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Taroni, F., Biedermann, A. and Aitken, C. (2023). Statistical Interpretation of Evidence: Bayesian Analysis. In M.M. Houck (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences (3rd ed., pp. 656-663). Elsevier.
Taruffo, M. (1992). La prova dei fatti giuridici. Giuffrè.
Taruffo, M. (2003). Rethinking the Standards of Proof. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 51(3), p. 659-677.
Taruffo, M. (2005). Tres observaciones sobre “Por qué un estándar de prueba subjetivo y ambiguo no es un estándar”, de Larry Laudan. Doxa, 28, p. 115-126.
Taruffo, M. (2009a). Fatto, prova e verità (alla luce del principio dell’oltre ogni ragionevole dubbio). Criminalia, p. 306-319.
Taruffo, M. (2009b). La semplice verità. Il giudice e la costruzione dei fatti. Laterza.
Thaman, S.C. (2016). Ensuring the factual reliability of criminal convictions: reasoned judgments or a return to formal rules of evidence?. In J.E. Ross and S.C. Thaman (Ed.) Comparative Criminal Procedure (p. 75-114). Elgar.
Thomas Aquinas (1265-1274). Summa Theologiae.
Tillers, P. (2011). Trial by mathematics – reconsidered. Law, Probability and Risk, 10, p. 167-173.
Tillers, P. and Gottfried, J. (2006). Case Comment – United States v. Copeland, 369 F. Supp. 2d 275 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). Law, Probability and Risk, 5, p. 135-157.
Tribe, L.H. (1971). Trial by Mathematics: Precision and Ritual in the Legal Process. Harward Law Review, 84(6), p. 1329-1392.
Triggiani, N. (2017). Lo standard dimostrativo nella decisione di colpevolezza. In A. Incampo and A.Scalfati (Eds.), Giudizio penale e ragionevole dubbio (pp. 325-338). Cacucci.
Tuzet, G. (2020). L’algoritmo come pastore del giudice? Diritto, tecnologie, prova scientifica. Media Laws, p. 45-55.
Tuzet, G. (2021). Assessment and Standards of Proof: a Messy Issue. Quaestio facti, (2), p. 87-113.
Tuzet, G. (2023). La prova ragionata. Giuffrè.
Tuzet, G. (2024). Certainty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Contemporary Pragmatism, 20(4), p. 398-423.
Twining, W. (1991). The New Evidence Scholarship. Cardozo Law Review, 13, p. 295-302.
Ubertis, G. (2013). Razionalismo processuale e verità. Il giusto processo civile, p. 325-333.
Ubertis, G. (2021). Profili di epistemologia giudiziaria (2nd Ed.). Giuffrè.
Vassalli, G. (1968). Il diritto alla prova nel processo penale. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, p. 3-59.
Verhesschen, K. and Fijnaut, C. (2020). Correcting Wrongful Convictions in France. Erasmus Law Review, 4, p. 22-32.
Verricelli, A. M. (1653). Quaestiones morales, & legales, Franciscum Baba.
Voltaire (1818) Ouvres complètes. Politique et Législation (Vol. I, T. XXI). Plancher.
Waldron, J. (1994). Vagueness in Law and Language: Some Philosophical Issues. California Law Review, 82(3), p. 509-540.
Welch R.E. (2013). Give Me That Old Time Religion: The Persistence of the Webster Reasonable Doubt Instruction and the Need to Abandon It. New England Law Review, 48, p. 31-54.
Wharton, F. (1880). A Treatise on the Law of Evidence in Criminal Issues (8th ed.). Kay and Brother.
Wigmore, J. (1940). A Treatise on the System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (Vol. 9). Little, Brown & Company.
Whitman, J.Q. (2008). The Origins of Reasonable Doubt. Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. Yale University Press.
Zander, M. (2000). The criminal standard of proof: how sure is sure?. New Law Journal, 1517-1519.
Zander, M. (2020). The criminal standard of proof: how sure is sure? Pt 2. New Law Journal, 7888. https://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/content/the-criminal-standard-of-proof-how-sure-is-sure-pt-2
Ajdarić v. Croatia, nº 20883/09, European Court of Human Rights, 13 December 2011
Barberà, Messegué and Jabardo v. Spain, nº 10590/83, European Court of Human Rights, 7 December 1988
Boaden, R v (2019) EWCA Crim 2284
Bogdanovic, R, v (2020) EWCA Crim 1229
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), 1 StR 360/16, January 12, 2017
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), 4 StR 554/16, May 11, 2017
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), 1 StR 535/16, July 12, 2017
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), 1 StR 261/17, November 21, 2017
Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), 2 StR 399/21, February 16, 2022
Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 39 (1990)
Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 453 (1895)
Commonwealth vs. John W. Webster (1850) 5 Cush. 295, 59 (Mass. 1850)
Court of Cassation Sentence (Italy), n. 1368, October 6, 1883. La Corte Suprema di Roma, 1883
Court of Cassation Sentence (Italy), Pressi, February 24, 1981. Rivista penale, 1981
Court of Cassation Sentence (Italy), Mattia, October 22, 1984. CED Cassazione, n. 167449
Court of Cassation Sentence (Italy), Joint Chambers, Franzese, July 10, 2002. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, 2002
Court of Cassation Sentence (Italy), Contena, May 12, 2004. Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, 2004
Court of Cassation Sentence (Italy), n. 41110, October 24, 2011. CED Cassazione, n. 251507
Court of Cassation Sentence (Italy), n. 42056, May 26, 2016. DeJure.
Court of Cassation Sentence (Italy), n. 48541, June 19, 2018. CED Cassazione, n. 274358-01
Court of Cassation Sentence (Italy), n. 39777, October 2, 2023. DeJure
Court of Milan Sentence (Italy), of June 18, 2015. Diritto penale contemporaneo. https://archiviodpc.dirittopenaleuomo.org/d/4213-il-teorema-di-bayes-fa-capolino-al-tribunale-di-milano
Desir [2022] EWCA Crim 1071, 198
Directive (EU) 2016/343 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 9 March 2016, on the strengthening of certain aspects of the presumption of innocence and of the right to be present at the trial in criminal proceedings (OJ L, num. 65, 11-3-2016, p. 1–11). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32016L0343
Directive (EU) 2016/680 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 27 April 2016, on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by competent authorities for the purposes of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences or the execution of criminal penalties, and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Council Framework Decision 2008/977/JHA (OJ L, num. 119, 4-5-2016, p. 89–131). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/680/oj/eng
Falk v. Netherlands, nº 66273/01, European Court of Human Rights, 19 October 2004
Gäfgen v Germany, nº 22978/05, European Court of Human Rights, 3 June 3010
Hepworth and Fearnley (1955) 2 QB 600, 603
Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 140 (1954)
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 309, 323-24 (1979)
Kerimoğlu v. Turkey, nº 29600/10, European Court of Human Rights, 6 December 2022
Kritz [1950] K.B. 82, 88-90
Lifchus (1997) 3 SCR 320
Majid [2009] EWCA Crim 2563
Manuela et al. v. El Salvador, Inter-American Court of Human Rights, November 2, 2021
Miah (2018) EWCA Crim 563
Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 312 (1880)
Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372
Mohammad & Another (2022) EWCA Crim 380
Murphy v. Holland, (1985) 776 F.2d470, (4th Cir. 1985)
People v. Downs (2015) IL 117934, 32. (Il. 2015)
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, c. 60 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents
R v JL (2017) EWCA Crim 621
R v Yap Chuan Ching (1976) 63 Cr App Rep 7, 11
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) (Text with EEA relevance) (OJ L, num. 2024/1689, 12-7-2024). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj/eng
Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. (2020)
Roura v. The State, 214 Ga. App. 43 (Ga. 1994)
Salabiaku v. France, nº 10519/83, European Court of Human Rights, 7 October 1988
Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275 (1993)
Summers (1952) 36 Cr. App. R. 14, 15
Supremo Tribunal de Justiça Sentence (Portugal), SJ200801100041985, of January 10, 2008. https://www.dgsi.pt/jstj.nsf/954f0ce6ad9dd8b980256b5f003fa814/7bfd4fddcd30787d802573d2003c2015?Open-Document
State v. Mitchell, 577 N.W.2d 481, 485 (Minn. 1998)
Taxquet v. Belgium, nº 926/05, European Court of Human Rights, 16 November 2010
Tribunal Constitucional Sentence (Spain), 129/1998 (First Chamber), of 16 June 1998 (appeal 1331/1995) - ES:TC:1998:129
Tribunal Supremo Sentence (Spain), 2254/2023 (Criminal Court), 21 September 2023
Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. 14 (1994).
Wanhalla (2006) NZCA 229.
Woolmington v D.P.P. (1935) AC 462.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i8.23112Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Jacopo Della Torre
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.