Scientific Questions of Fact Between Free Evaluation of Evidence and Proof Beyond any Reasonable Doubt in the Criminal Trial
In contemporary legal epistemology it is common to talk about the “paradox of expert testimony”, which can be formulated as follows: “how can the judge assess information provided by an expert witness if he needs him precisely because of his own lack of adequate specialist knowledge?”. The goal of t...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | Gaetano Carlizzi |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Universitat de Girona. Cátedra de Cultura Jurídica
2020-01-01
|
| Series: | Quaestio Facti |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://revistes.udg.edu/quaestio-facti/article/view/22366 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Similar Items
-
Judging Beyond Any Reasonable Doubt
by: Rocco Neri
Published: (2024-06-01) -
Issues of Proof in Judicial Review of Expulsion Decisions
by: Melikşah Yasin
Published: (2022-12-01) -
The BARD Standard
by: Giovanni Tuzet
Published: (2025-06-01) -
The defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in the Italian criminal justice system
by: Francesco Callari
Published: (2021-08-01) -
Taking the Evolution of the Standards of Proof for a Criminal Conviction Seriously
by: Jacopo Della Torre
Published: (2025-01-01)