Contents

[close]

(2009) 13 E & P 167

Comparative aspects of expert evidence in civil litigation
Remme Verkerk

To resolve factual questions that require specialist knowledge in civil cases, European Continental jurisdictions have traditionally used only court-appointed experts. Common law jurisdictions have almost exclusively resorted to experts retained by the parties. This article discusses the legal rules on court-appointed experts in different Continental jurisdictions and contrasts US and Continental rules on experts retained by the parties. These comparisons aim to provide insight into the different methods to regulate the use of experts in civil cases. In recent times, legislators in common law jurisdictions have encouraged the use of court-appointed experts while Continental jurisdictions gradually recognise the merits of hearing party-appointed experts. It is argued that legal rules that have been used and tested in one jurisdiction may serve as a source of inspiration for amending and improving rules in other legal systems.

[close]

[close]

(2009) 13 E & P 198

Re-imagining the criminal standard of proof: lessons from the ?ethics of belief?
H. L. Ho

On a standard view, the criminal standard of ?proof beyond reasonable doubt? is a statement of probabilities, the preset benchmark of evidential support that must be crossed before a contested hypothesis of guilt can be accepted as true. Where to set that benchmark calls into play the calculation of social costs and benefits. This article proposes an agent-centred interpretation, one that involves viewing trial deliberation as a mental activity and the acquisition of an ethical vocabulary with which to express standards of excellence for the conduct of that activity. Our moral exemplar would, in her deliberation on the criminal verdict, exhibit relevant virtuous traits, and be guided by practical wisdom in the contextual operation of those traits. In judging the application of the standard of proof, there is a sense in which we should ultimately be making an ethical judgment of the person who applies it.

[close]

[close]

Links to other issues

Volume 5 (2001) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 6 (2002) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 7 (2003) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 8 (2004) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 9 (2005) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 10 (2006) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 11 (2007) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 12 (2008) :   1   2   3   4

Volume 13 (2009) :   1   2   3

[close]