Standards and Methods of Proof
An English Perspective on Della Torre’s Comparative Legal History
Descargas
Resumen
This Comment responds to Jacopo Della Torre’s recent article advocating Taking the Evolution of the Standards of Proof for Criminal Conviction Seriously. Having summarised Della Torre’s central thesis and clarified (and largely endorsed) his contextual approach to investigating the criminal standard of proof, I offer—from the perspective of an English common lawyer—some methodological caveats, conceptual reservations and minor textual corrections to Della Torre’s illuminating comparative legal history.
Palabras clave
standards of proof, beyond reasonable doubt, intime conviction, forensic epistemology, comparative criminal procedure, comparative legal historyDescargas
Citas
Brodowski, D., Fissell, B. and Roberts, P. (2024). Pretext, Deception and Entrapment in Criminal Investigations. In K. Ambos, A. Duff, A. Heinze, J. Roberts and T. Weigend (eds.), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice (volume 3). Cambridge University Press.
Brook, C. A., Fiannaca, B., Harvey, D., Marcus, P., Pomerance, R. and Roberts, P. (2021). A Comparative Examination of Police Interrogation of Criminal Suspects in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, New Zealand, and the United States. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 29(4), p. 909-1008. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol29/iss4/2/
Dahlman, C., Stein, A. and Tuzet, G. (2021). Philosophical Foundations of Evidence Law. Oxford University Press.
Damaška, M. (1997). Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited. Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 5(25), p. 25-40.
Damaška, M. (2018). Evaluation of Evidence: Pre-Modern and Modern Approaches. Cambridge University Press.
Darbyshire, P., Maughan, A. and Stewart, A. (2001). What Can We Learn from Published Jury Research? Findings for the Criminal Courts Review. Criminal Law Review, p. 970-979
Della Torre, J. (2025). Taking the Evolution of the Standards of Proof for Criminal Conviction Seriously. Quaestio facti. International Journal on Evidential Legal Reasoning, 8, p. 155-216. https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i8.23112
Ellison, L. and Munro, V. E. (2015). ‘Telling tales’: exploring narratives of life and law within the (mock) jury room. Legal Studies, 35(2), p. 201-225. https://doi.org/10.1111/lest.12051
Epps, D. (2015). The Consequences of Error in Criminal Justice. Harvard Law Review, 128(4), p. 1065-1151.
Franklin, J. (2001). The Science of Conjecture: Evidence and Probability before Pascal. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Helm, R. K. (2024). How Juries Work. Oxford University Press.
Hobsbawn, E. (1988). The Age of Revolution: 1789–1848. Abacus.
Johnson, P. (1991). The Birth of the Modern: World Society 1815-1830. HarperCollins.
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, p. 505-527.
Kotsoglou, K. N. (2020). Proof beyond a context-relevant doubt. A structural analysis of the standard of proof in criminal adjudication. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(1), p. 111-133.
Marcus, P. (2013). Judges Talking To Jurors in Criminal Cases: Why U.S. Judges Do It So Differently From Just About Everyone Else. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 30, p. 1-64. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1660
Nelken, D. (1995). Disclosing/Invoking Legal Culture: an Introduction. Social and Legal Studies, 4(4), p. 435-452. https://doi.org/10.1177/096466399500400401
Nelken, D. (ed.) (2000). Contrasting Criminal Justice. Ashgate.
Picinali, F. (2015). The threshold lies in the method: instructing jurors about reasoning beyond reasonable doubt. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 19(3), p. 139-153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365712715571511
Picinali, F. (2022). Justice In-Between: A Study of Intermediate Criminal Verdicts. Oxford University Press.
Roberts, P. (2010). Confronting the Challenges of Cosmopolitan Criminal Jurisprudence. Inaugural Lecture, University of Nottingham, 10 September 2010
Roberts, P. (2020). Adrian Zuckerman’s New Evidence Scholarship. In R. Assy and A. Higgins (eds.), Principles, Procedure, and Justice: Essays in Honour of Adrian Zuckerman. Oxford University Press.
Roberts, P. (2022a). Beccaria Now: (Re)reading On Crimes and Punishment. In A. du Bois-Pedain and S. Eldar (eds), Re- Reading Beccaria: On the Contemporary Significance of a Penal Classic. Hart.
Roberts, P. (2022b). Roberts and Zuckerman's Criminal Evidence (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Roberts, P. (2023). Theorising Evidence Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 43(3), p. 629-649. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqad007
Roberts, P. (2024). Review of Picinali: Justice In-Between: A Study of Intermediate Criminal Verdicts. In Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Books. https://clcjbooks.rutgers.edu/books/justice-in-between/.
Roberts, P. (2025). Reasonable Doubts?: Rationalising Appellate Review of Witness Credibility in Criminal Trials. Canadian Criminal Law Review, 28(1), p. 21-58.
Shapiro, B. J. (1991). Beyond Reasonable Doubt and Probable Cause: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence. California University Press.
Stephen, J. F. (1881). A Digest of the Law of Evidence (4th edition) Macmillan & Co.
Stephen, J. F. (1996) [1883]. A History of the Criminal Law of England (volume 1). Routledge.
Thomas, C. (2013). Avoiding the Perfect Storm of Juror Contempt. Criminal Law Review, p. 483-503. https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1390245/1/Chery_Thomas_article__final.pdf
Tuzet, G. (2020). Assessment Criteria or Standards of Proof? An Effort in Clarification. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(1), p. 91-109.
Waldman, T. (1959). Origins of the Legal Doctrine of Reasonable Doubt. Journal of the History of Ideas, 20(3), p. 299-316. https://doi.org/10.2307/2708111
Weisselberg, C. D. (2017). Exporting and Importing Miranda. Boston University Law Review, 97, p. 1235-1291. https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/files/2017/08/WEISSELBERG.pdf
Whitman, J. Q. (2008). The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial. Yale University Press.
AG v Dean and Canons of Windsor (1860) 11 ER 472, 8 HLC 369.
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, c. 19. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/19/contents
Criminal Justice Act 1988, c. 33. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/33/contents
Criminal Practice Directions 2023. https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Criminal-Practice-Directions-2023-1.pdf
Domestic Abuse Act 2021, c. 17. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/17/contents
Enohin v Wylie (1862) ER 924; 10 HLC 1.
Ferguson v R [1979] 1 WLR 94, PC.
Forbes v Meer Mahomed Tuquee (1870) 20 ER 614, 13 Moore Ind App 438.
In re Winship, 397 US 358 (1970).
Judicial College (2024). 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
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, c. 60. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents
R v Adams (No.2) [1998] 1 Cr App R 377, CA.
R v Ayre [2025] EWCA Crim 255.
R v Gray (1900) 82 Law Times 534 (16 June).
R v Kritz [1950] 1 KB 82, CCA.
R v Majid [2009] EWCA Crim 2563.
R v Smith (Michael William) [2012] EWCA Crim 404.
R v Summers (1952) 36 Cr App R 14, CCA.
R v Yap Chuan Ching (1976) 63 Cr App R 7, CA.
Road Traffic Act 1988, c. 52. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/contents
Serious Crime Act 2015, c. 9. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/9/contents
Thakoor v Rai (1865) 19 ER 941, 10 Moore Ind App 183.
Way v East (1853) 61 ER 635, 2 Drewry 44.
Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462, HL.
DOI
https://doi.org/10.33115/udg_bib/qf.i9.23151Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2025 Paul Roberts
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución 4.0.