Quaestio Facti

Quaestio Facti 1, 2019

Index

ESSAYS: Judging Expert Testimony: From Verbal Formalism to Practical Advice, Susan Haack (University of Miami); Testigos no disponibles y confrontación: fundamentos epistémicos y no epistémicos, Pablo Rovatti (Universidad de Buenos Aires); Quaestio facti e Quaestio iuris, Giulio Ubertis (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore de Milano); En materia de prueba: sobre algunos cuestionables tópicos jurisprudenciales, Perfecto Andrés Ibáñez (Magistrado Emérito del Tribunal Supremo); La etapa de preparación del juicio oral y su rol en el control de la admisibilidad probatoria en Chile, Mauricio Duce (Universidad Diego Portales); Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal Trial, Gaetano Carlizzi (Università Suor Orsola Benincasa di Napoli); La prueba ilícita ante la bifurcación del tribunal penal, Juan Pablo Aristegui Spikin (Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez).

CONJECTURES AND REFUTATIONS: El testimonio único de la víctima en el proceso penal desde la perspectiva de género, José Luis Ramírez Ortiz (Magistrado de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona); Notas sobre el testimonio único en casos de violencia de género, Federico Arena (Universidad Blas Pascal); Garanzia del contraddittorio e testimonianza della sola vittima, Roberta Casiraghi (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore de Milano); La perspectiva de género en el proceso penal,Olga Fuentes Soriano (Universidad de Alicante)Prueba y perspectiva de género. Un comentario crítico, Raymundo Gama (ITAM).

SCIENCE FOR LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: Cuando el derecho es poco fiable. Respuestas jurídicas a la prueba de huellas dactilares latentes, Gary Edmond (University of New South Wales).

IURIS PRUDENTIA: Sobre el deber de motivación de las decisiones probatorias y el juicio por jurados. La sentencia V.R.P., V.P.C. y otros vs. Nicaragua de la CIDH, Jordi Ferrer Beltrán (Universidad de Girona).

Essays

JUDGING EXPERT TESTIMONY: FROM VERBAL FORMALISM TO PRACTICAL ADVICE

Author: Susan Haack. Distinguished Professor in the Humanities, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, Professor of Philosophy and Professor of Law at the University of Miami

ABSTRACT: Appraising the worth of others’ testimony is always complex; appraising the worth of expert testimony is even harder; appraising the worth of expert testimony in a legal context is harder yet. Legal efforts to assess the reliability of expert testimony —I’ll focus on evolving U.S. law governing the admissibility of such testimony— seem far from adequate, offering little effective practical guidance. My purpose in this paper is to think through what might be done to offer courts more real, operational help. The first step is to explain why the legal formulae that have evolved over the years may seem reassuring, but aren’t really of much practical use. The next is to suggest that we might do better not by amending evidentiary rules but by helping judges and attorneys understand what questions they should ask about expert evidence. I focus here on (i) epidemiological testimony, and (ii) the process of peer review.

KEYWORDS: evidence law; expert testimony; reliability; epidemiology; peer review; the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho régime.

Conjectures and Refutations

SINGLE VICTIM’S TESTIMONY AND GENDER PERSPECTIVE IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Author: José Luis Ramírez Ortiz. Magistrado, Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona

ABSTRACT: The author of this paper analyses if gender perspective is useful in criminal proceedings to asses the single victim’s testimony in order to reach a conviction. The conclusion is negative. Gender perspective provides tools to evaluate evidence without prejudices, but in spite of the epistemic values of those tools, the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness is not sufficient, in any case, for proof of guilt in a criminal proceeding as it cannot distort the presumption of innocence. However, the author highlights that in the pretrial investigation, gender perspective acquires a remarkable heuristic utility, both to adequately construct the inculpatory hypotheses and to collect evidence that will be use to corroborate the witness testimony in the future trial.

KEYWORDS: Single victim’s testimony; corroboration; presumption of innocence; gender perspective; stereotypes; free proof and legal proof.

Style switcher RESET
Color settings
Color 1
Background image