Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
9,452
result(s) for
"Expert evidence"
Sort by:
CRIMINAL LAW: MINIMAL RATIONALITY AND THE LAW OF EVIDENCE
For more than a century, one of the pillars upon which the law of evidence was thought to rest is that the primary (although by no means exclusive) objective of the law of evidence is to further accurate fact-finding by maximizing the rationality of the evidentiary process. The crux of this pillar is that the law of evidence increases rationality (and thereby increases accuracy) through admissibility rules that (1) require reliable evidence, and (2) behave paternalistically toward jurors and their cognitive abilities.
Journal Article
Anthropological Witness
Anthropological Witness tells
the story of Alexander Laban Hinton's encounter with an accused
architect of genocide and, more broadly, Hinton's attempt to
navigate the promises and perils of expert testimony. In
March 2016, Hinton served as an expert witness at the Extraordinary
Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, an international tribunal
established to try senior Khmer Rouge leaders for crimes committed
during the 1975-79 Cambodian genocide. His testimony culminated in
a direct exchange with Pol Pot's notorious right-hand man, Nuon
Chea, who was engaged in genocide denial.
Anthropological Witness looks at big questions about
the ethical imperatives and epistemological assumptions involved in
explanation and the role of the public scholar in addressing issues
relating to truth, justice, social repair, and genocide. Hinton
asks: Can scholars who serve as expert witnesses effectively
contribute to international atrocity crimes tribunals where the
focus is on legal guilt as opposed to academic explanation? What
does the answer to this question say more generally about academia
and the public sphere? At a time when the world faces a multitude
of challenges, the answers Hinton provides to such questions about
public scholarship are urgent.
eBook
THE JUDICIAL PRESUMPTION OF POLICE EXPERTISE
This Article examines the unrecognized origins and scope of the judicial presumption of police expertise: the notion that trained, experienced officers develop insight into crime sufficiently rarefied and reliable to justify deference from courts. That presumption has been widely criticized in Fourth Amendment analysis. Yet the Fourth Amendment is in fact part of a much broader constellation of deference, one that begins outside criminal procedure and continues past it. Drawing on judicial opinions, appellate records, trial transcripts, police periodicals, and other archival materials, this Article argues that courts in the mid-twentieth century invoked police expertise to expand police authority in multiple areas of the law. They certified policemen as expert witnesses on criminal habits; they deferred to police insights in evaluating arrests and authorizing investigatory stops; and they even credited police knowledge in upholding criminal laws challenged for vagueness, offering the officer's trained judgment as a check against the risk of arbitrary enforcement. Complicating traditional accounts of judicial deference as a largely instrumental phenomenon, this Article argues that courts in the midcentury in fact came to reappraise police work as producing rare and reliable \"expert\" knowledge. And it identifies at least one explanation for that shift in the folds and interconnections between the courts' many diverse encounters with the police in these years. From trials to suppression hearings to professional activities outside the courtroom, judges experienced multiple sites of unique exposure to the rhetoric and evidence of the police's expert claims. These encounters primed judges to embrace police expertise not only through their deliberative content, but also their many structural biases toward police knowledge. This development poses important and troubling consequences for the criminal justice system, deepening critiques of police judgment in criminal procedure and raising novel concerns about the limits of judicial reasoning about police practices.
Journal Article
Forensic evidence in court : evaluation and scientific opinion
The interpretation and evaluation of scientific evidence and its presentation in a court of law is central both to the role of the forensic scientist as an expert witness and to the interests of justice. This book aims to provide a thorough and detailed discussion of the principles and practice of evidence interpretation and evaluation by using real cases by way of illustration. The presentation is appropriate for students of forensic science or related disciplines at advanced undergraduate and master's level or for practitioners engaged in continuing professional development activity.
The book is structured in three sections. The first sets the scene by describing and debating the issues around the admissibility and reliability of scientific evidence presented to the court. In the second section, the principles underpinning interpretation and evaluation are explained, including discussion of those formal statistical methods founded on Bayesian inference. The following chapters present perspectives on the evaluation and presentation of evidence in the context of a single type or class of scientific evidence, from DNA to the analysis of documents. For each, the science underpinning the analysis and interpretation of the forensic materials is explained, followed by the presentation of cases which illustrate the variety of approaches that have been taken in providing expert scientific opinion.
eBook
Listening to killers : lessons learned from my twenty years as a psychological expert witness in murder cases
\"Listening to Killers offers an inside look at twenty years' worth of murder files from Dr. James Garbarino, a leading expert psychological witness who listens to killers so that he can testify in court. The author offers detailed accounts of how killers travel a path that leads from childhood innocence to lethal violence in adolescence or adulthood. He places the emotional and moral damage of each individual killer within a larger scientific framework of social, psychological, anthropological, and biological research on human development. By linking individual cases to broad social and cultural issues and illustrating the social toxicity and unresolved trauma that drive some people to kill, Dr. Garbarino highlights the humanity we share with killers and the role of understanding and empathy in breaking the cycle of violence\"--Provided by publisher.
Book
Meaningful machine confrontation
Machine-generated evidence is now ubiquitous in criminal trials, and more sophisticated forms of inculpatory evidence are on the way. Courts have almost universally held that the Confrontation Clause does not give criminal defendants a constitutional right to confront machine-generated evidence, except in narrow cases where the evidence also contains testimonial statements made by a human operator. Several scholars have countered that the Confrontation Clause should be read more broadly to consider machine accusers as \"witnesses\" that trigger confrontation rights. While cross-examination has been the traditional confrontation right in the American legal system, there are machine analogs such as source code disclosure, broadened discovery, machine access, and expanded live testimony that could be afforded to criminal defendants facing machine-generated evidence.
This Note presumes that the right to machine confrontation should exist and focuses on which of the proposed alternatives constitutes meaningful machine confrontation in light of the technology at issue. Existing calls for machine confrontation propose blanket solutions without fully considering the practical concerns judges invoke, the realities defense attorneys face, or the types of technology involved. This Note aims to fill this gap with three contributions. First, it provides a comprehensive view of the technologies entering criminal trials, including those sophisticated tools that will one day dominate discussion. Second, it proposes a taxonomy of the technological characteristics underlying these tools, focusing on characteristics that implicate the Confrontation Clause's concerns about dignity and reliability. Third, it considers how these underlying characteristics dictate which proposed confrontation rights would be most meaningful.
A machine-specific approach like the one proposed here serves three important functions. First, by considering how machine confrontation would work, it rebuts the judicial argument that such confrontation is impossible or impractical. Second, it offers practical guidance for defendants and cash-strapped attorneys who must face these machines. Third, it sets the stage for other interventions-if judges continue to reject the Confrontation Clause as the vehicle to respond to the problems of machine-generated evidence, legislatures and rulemaking bodies will need guidance on how to structure alternatives.
Journal Article