Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice pp 93–173Cite as

Expert Evidence in Domestic Jurisdictions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 608 Accesses

Abstract

Given the hundreds of years of practice and legal thought, procedural devices addressing the issue of quality of expert evidence in international criminal trials might already be available in national jurisdictions. They might not be as readily employed in these jurisdictions due to various historical reasons, but ideas stemming from the lessons learned still exist. As a procedural environment that was initially founded as a mixture of traditions, international criminal proceedings have a unique opportunity to marry the best ‘combinable’ practices in relation to expert evidence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Gallanis, T. (1999), The Rise of Modern Evidence Law, 84 Iowa Law Review, pp. 499–560; Langbein, J. (2003), The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 4.

  2. 2.

    Langbein, J.H. (2003), The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press, ch. 4; Dwyer, D. (2008), The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–24.

  3. 3.

    Frankel, M. (1975), The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View, 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, pp. 1031–1059.

  4. 4.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 26.

  5. 5.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 26.

  6. 6.

    Bentham, J. (1823), Traité des preuves judiciaires, Paris: Bossanges Frères, cited in Dwyer, D. (2008), The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 24; see also Twining, W. (1985), Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore, London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.

  7. 7.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 24. see also Alldridge, P. (1999), Scientific Expertise and Comparative Criminal Procedure, 3 International Journal of Evidence & Proof.

  8. 8.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 24.

  9. 9.

    Best, W. (1849), Principles of the Law of Evidence and Practice as to Proofs in Courts of Common Law. London: Sweet, p. Preface, cited in Dwyer, D. (2008), The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 24.

  10. 10.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 24.

  11. 11.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 29.

  12. 12.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, pp. 15–16.

  13. 13.

    Dwyer, D. (2007). (Why) Are Civil and Criminal Expert Evidence Different? 43 Tusla Law Review, pp. 381–384.

  14. 14.

    Sklansky, D.A. and Yeazell, S.C. (2006), Comparative Law without Leaving Home: What Civil Procedure Can Teach Criminal Procedure, and Vice Versa, 94 Georgetown Law Journal, p. 728.

  15. 15.

    In Sklansky, D.A. and Yeazell, S.C. (2006), Comparative Law without Leaving Home: What Civil Procedure Can Teach Criminal Procedure, and Vice Versa, 94 Georgetown Law Journal, p. 728.

  16. 16.

    Dwyer, D. (2008), The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 31–35.

  17. 17.

    Dwyer, D. (2008), The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 32.

  18. 18.

    Dwyer, D. (2008), The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 30; Capowski, J.J. (2008), Establishing Separate Civil and Criminal Evidence Codes, 61 Arkansas Law Review, p. 235.

  19. 19.

    Dwyer, D. (2007), (Why) Are Civil and Criminal Expert Evidence Different? 43 Tusla Law Review, pp. 381–384.

  20. 20.

    Dwyer, D. (2008), The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 31.

  21. 21.

    See Dwyer, D. (2007), (Why) Are Civil and Criminal Expert Evidence Different? 43 Tusla Law Review; Capowski, J.J. (2008), Establishing Separate Civil and Criminal Evidence Codes, 61 Arkansas Law Review.

  22. 22.

    Anderson, T., Schum, D., and Twining, W. (2005), Analysis of Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 242.

  23. 23.

    Foster, C.E. (2011), Science and the Precautionary Principle in International Courts and Tribunals: Expert Evidence, Burden of Proof and Finality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 10.

  24. 24.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 41–42.

  25. 25.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 48.

  26. 26.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, p. 49.

  27. 27.

    The Law Commission is a statutory advisory non-departmental independent public body sponsored by the Ministry of Justice, which was created by the Law Commissions Act 1965. The Law Commission reviews areas of the law that have become unduly complicated, outdated or unfair. Following a process of research and consultation, the Commission makes recommendations for reform of the law to Government of the United Kingdom.

  28. 28.

    Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Roberts, P. and Zuckerman A. (2010), Criminal Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press; R. v. Robb (1991) 93 Cr. App. R. 161.

  29. 29.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 357.

  30. 30.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 108.

  31. 31.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 108.

  32. 32.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 347.

  33. 33.

    Rule 33.4 of the Criminal Procedure Rules of the Courts of England and Wales, 2015 No. 1726 (L.6).

  34. 34.

    Section 78, however, was not designed to apply to expert evidence.

  35. 35.

    Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 97.

  36. 36.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 53.

  37. 37.

    Section 4.3 of Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims.

  38. 38.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office.

  39. 39.

    See e.g. R. v. Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903, [2005] 1 Cr App R 12; R. v. Clark [2003] EWCA Crim 1020, [2003] 2 FCR 447 (second appeal); R. v. Cannings [2004] EWCA Crim 1, [2004] 1 WLR 2607; R. v. Harris [2005] EWCA Crim 1980, [2006] 1 Cr App R 5; see also the Law Commission Consultation Paer No 190. (2009). The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales; a New Approach in Determination of Evidentiary Reliability. Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office.

  40. 40.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 13.

  41. 41.

    Following R. v. Turner [1975] QB 834.

  42. 42.

    R. v. Turner [1975] QB 834, 841.

  43. 43.

    R. v. Bonython [1984] 38 SASR 45.

  44. 44.

    R. v. Bonython [1984] 38 SASR 45, 47.

  45. 45.

    R. v. Stubbs [2006] EWCA Crim 2312, [2006] All ER (D) 133; Leo Sawrij v. North Cumbria Magistrates’ Court [2009] EWHC 2823 (Admin), [2010] 1 Cr App R 22; The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 13.

  46. 46.

    R. v. Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766; see Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 96; The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 14.

  47. 47.

    R. v. Silverlock [1894] 2 QB 766, 771; see Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 96.

  48. 48.

    R. v. Robb (1991) 93 Cr. App. R. 161; see Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  49. 49.

    Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrates (1953) S.C. 34, 40.

  50. 50.

    R. v. Robb (1991) 93 Cr. App. R, 161, 164.

  51. 51.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 14.

  52. 52.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 13.

  53. 53.

    R. v. Stubbs [2006] EWCA Crim 2312, 59. Emphasis added by author.

  54. 54.

    “Because Mr Broadbent [expert] is engaged on behalf of the City Council as part of their Claim Investigation Section, it would be virtually impossible for him to bring objectivity which is needed in order to give expert evidence to a court to bear on the issues in this case.” Fields v. Leeds City Council, (2000) 32 H.L.R. 618, 621.

  55. 55.

    Fields v. Leeds City Council, (2000) 32 H.L.R. 618, 622.

  56. 56.

    Fields v. Leeds City Council, (2000) 32 H.L.R. 618, 622.

  57. 57.

    Fields v. Leeds City Council, (2000) 32 H.L.R. 618, 622.

  58. 58.

    Fields v. Leeds City Council, (2000) 32 H.L.R. 618, 623.

  59. 59.

    The Law Commission No 325. (2011). Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office.

  60. 60.

    Toth v. Jarman [2006] C.P. Rep. 44.

  61. 61.

    Whitehouse v. Jordan [1981] 1 W.L.R. 246; see also Pollivitte Ltd v. Commercial Union Assurance Company Plc [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 379, “[a]n expert witness should provide independent assistance to the court by way of objective unbiased opinion in relation to matters within his expertise.”

  62. 62.

    Whitehouse v. Jordan [1981] 1 W.L.R. 246, 256.

  63. 63.

    Toth v. Jarman [2006] C.P. Rep. 44, 703.

  64. 64.

    Toth v. Jarman [2006] C.P. Rep. 44, 699.

  65. 65.

    Toth v. Jarman [2006] C.P. Rep. 44, 699.

  66. 66.

    Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trustees Inc v. Goldberg [2001] 1 W.L.R. 2337, 2340.

  67. 67.

    Whitehouse v. Jordan [1981] 1 W.L.R. 246, 256: before the House of Lords, where Lord Wilberforce stated: “[e]xpert evidence presented to the court should be, and should be seen to be, the independent product of the expert uninfluenced as to the form or content by the exigencies of litigation. The role of an expert witness is special owing, as he does, duties to the court which he must discharge notwithstanding the interest of the party calling him.”

  68. 68.

    Liverpool Roman Catholic Archdiocesan Trustees Inc v. Goldberg [2001] 1 W.L.R. 2337, 2340. Emphasis added by author.

  69. 69.

    R. (Factortame Ltd and Others) v. Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions [2002] 3 W.L.R. 1104.

  70. 70.

    R. (Factortame Ltd and Others) v. Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions [2002] 3 W.L.R. 1104, 409–410.

  71. 71.

    Hamilton v. Al-Fayed [2003] 2 W.L.R. 128, 152–153.

  72. 72.

    R. (Factortame Ltd and Others) v. Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions [2002] 3 W.L.R. 1104, 410.

  73. 73.

    R. (Factortame Ltd and Others) v. Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and Regions [2002] 3 W.L.R. 1104, 411.

  74. 74.

    The matter of the case was odour pollution emanating from the defendant’s composting site complained of by two claimants.

  75. 75.

    The council and the Environment Agency took initial measures to resolve the problem of smells to the claimants’ satisfaction. However, the measures did not prove to be enough and later claimants issued proceedings in private nuisance for an injunction and damages.

  76. 76.

    Morgan and Baker v. Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd. [2009] C.P. Rep. 26, 72.

  77. 77.

    Morgan and Baker v. Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd. [2009] C.P. Rep. 26, H11. Emphasis added.

  78. 78.

    Morgan and Baker v. Hinton Organics (Wessex) Ltd. [2009] C.P. Rep. 26, 72.

  79. 79.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 18.

  80. 80.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 15.

  81. 81.

    R. v. Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903, [2003] 1 Cr App R 12, 29; R. v. Luttrell [2004] EWCA Crim 1344, [2004] 2 Cr App R 31, 37; see also R. v. Reed [2009] EWCA Crim 2698, [2010] 1 Cr App R 23, 111; and R. v. Broughton [2010] EWCA Crim 549, 32.

  82. 82.

    R. v. Bonython, [1984] 38 SASR 45.

  83. 83.

    R. v. Gilfoyle (No 2) [2001] 2 Cr App R 5, 25.

  84. 84.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 15.

  85. 85.

    R. v. Bonython, [1984] 38 SASR 45, 47.

  86. 86.

    R. v. Gilfoyle (No 2) [2001] 2 Cr App R 5, 25.

  87. 87.

    R. v. Gilfoyle (No 2) [2001] 2 Cr App R 5, 25.

  88. 88.

    R. v. Reed [2009] EWCA Crim 2698, [2010] 1 Cr App R 23.

  89. 89.

    R. v. Weller [2010] EWCA Crim 1085, Case Digest Summary.

  90. 90.

    Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrates (1953) S.C. 34, 37.

  91. 91.

    Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrates (1953) S.C. 34, 37.

  92. 92.

    Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrates (1953) S.C. 34, 38.

  93. 93.

    Davie v. Edinburgh Magistrates (1953) S.C. 34, 40.

  94. 94.

    R. v. Atkins [2009] EWCA Crim 1876; R. v. Otway [2011] EWCA Crim 3.

  95. 95.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, p. 33.

  96. 96.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, p. 31.

  97. 97.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office.

  98. 98.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, p. 32.

  99. 99.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 19.

  100. 100.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 19.

  101. 101.

    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 190. (2009). The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales; a New Approach in Determination of Evidentiary Reliability. Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 52.

  102. 102.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 19.

  103. 103.

    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 190. (2009). The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales; a New Approach in Determination of Evidentiary Reliability. Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 58.

  104. 104.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 19.

  105. 105.

    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 190. (2009). The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales; a New Approach in Determination of Evidentiary Reliability. Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 58.

  106. 106.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 61.

  107. 107.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 61.

  108. 108.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 32.

  109. 109.

    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 190. (2009). The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales; a New Approach in Determination of Evidentiary Reliability. Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 54.

  110. 110.

    R. v. Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903, 11.

  111. 111.

    R. v. Dallagher [2002] EWCA Crim 1903, 29.

  112. 112.

    R. v. Kempster [2003] EWCA Crim 3555, 25.

  113. 113.

    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 190. (2009). The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales; a New Approach in Determination of Evidentiary Reliability. Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 57.

  114. 114.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 113.

  115. 115.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 32.

  116. 116.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, pp. 33–34.

  117. 117.

    See the Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 69.

  118. 118.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 74.

  119. 119.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, pp. 36–37.

  120. 120.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, pp. 36–37.

  121. 121.

    There are however very few meaningless unconfirmed exceptions – see the Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 90.

  122. 122.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, pp. 89–90.

  123. 123.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, pp. 89–90.

  124. 124.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 91.

  125. 125.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 97.

  126. 126.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 95.

  127. 127.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 347.

  128. 128.

    Other federal statutory mechanisms that govern specific procedures in relation to expert evidence are the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Their application to the admissibility of expert evidence is minimal due to the incorporation of the relevant content regarding expert evidence into the Federal Rules of Evidence governing both criminal and civil procedures.

  129. 129.

    US Federal Courts are: Supreme Court of the US, US Court of Appeals, US District Courts, US Bankruptcy Courts, and US Courts of Special Jurisdiction.

  130. 130.

    The FRE were subsequently amended in 2011, which only included some stylistic changes and did not touch upon the fundamental content of the rules.

  131. 131.

    Advisory Committee Notes on FRE 702, available at: http://federalevidence.com/node/1335. Accessed on 14 March 2012; Conley, J.M. and Moriarty, J.C. (2007), Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Aspen Publishers Inc, pp. 17–18.

  132. 132.

    Advisory Committee Notes on FRE 702, available at: http://federalevidence.com/node/1335. Accessed on 14 March 2012.

  133. 133.

    Conley, J.M. and Moriarty, J.C. (2007), Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Aspen Publishers Inc, pp. 29–30.

  134. 134.

    Conley, J.M. and Moriarty, J.C. (2007), Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Aspen Publishers Inc, p. 29.

  135. 135.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 452.

  136. 136.

    Dillhoff, M. (2011), Science, Law, and Truth: Defining the Scope of the Daubert Trilogy, 86(3) Notre Dam Law Review, p. 1292.

  137. 137.

    Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (C.A. D.C. 1923).

  138. 138.

    Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 101–102.

  139. 139.

    Dillhoff, M. (2011), Science, Law, and Truth: Defining the Scope of the Daubert Trilogy, 86(3) Notre Dam Law Review, pp. 1292–1293.

  140. 140.

    Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (C.A. D.C. 1923).

  141. 141.

    Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013, 1014 (C.A. D.C. 1923).

  142. 142.

    United States v. Addison 498 F2.d 741, 743 (1974).

  143. 143.

    Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 102.

  144. 144.

    Dillhoff, M. (2011), Science, Law, and Truth: Defining the Scope of the Daubert Trilogy, 86(3) Notre Dam Law Review, pp. 1292–1293.

  145. 145.

    Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 107.

  146. 146.

    Dillhoff, M. (2011), Science, Law, and Truth: Defining the Scope of the Daubert Trilogy, 86(3) Notre Dam Law Review, p. 1294.

  147. 147.

    Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 107.

  148. 148.

    See Dillhoff, M. (2011), Science, Law, and Truth: Defining the Scope of the Daubert Trilogy, 86(3) Notre Dam Law Review.

  149. 149.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 588 (1993) [citing Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 (1988)].

  150. 150.

    Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 107.

  151. 151.

    Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc. 839 A2.d 1038, 1040 (Pa. 2003).

  152. 152.

    Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc. 839 A2.d 1038, 1044 (Pa. 2003).

  153. 153.

    Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc. 839 A2.d 1038, 1045 (Pa. 2003).

  154. 154.

    Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc. 839 A2.d 1038, 1045 (Pa. 2003).

  155. 155.

    Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 107.

  156. 156.

    Redmayne, M. (2001), Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 107; Conley, J.M. and Moriarty, J.C. (2007), Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Aspen Publishers Inc., pp. 50–52.

  157. 157.

    See Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review.

  158. 158.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 343.

  159. 159.

    Dillhoff, M. (2011), Science, Law, and Truth: Defining the Scope of the Daubert Trilogy, 86(3) Notre Dam Law Review, p. 1295.

  160. 160.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 579 (1993).

  161. 161.

    Substance that is capable of causing malformation in foetuses.

  162. 162.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 582 (1993).

  163. 163.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 583 (1993).

  164. 164.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 584 (1993).

  165. 165.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 584 (1993);

  166. 166.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 579 (1993).

  167. 167.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 589 (1993); Dixon, L. and Brian, G. (2001), Changes in the Standards Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases since the Daubert Decision. San Diego, CA: RAND. Emphasis added.

  168. 168.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 590 (1993).

  169. 169.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 593 (1993); Conley, J.M. and Moriarty, J.C. (2007), Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Aspen Publishers Inc, pp. 58–96.

  170. 170.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 593 (1993); Conley, J.M. and Moriarty, J.C. (2007), Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Aspen Publishers Inc, pp. 58–96.

  171. 171.

    See Dixon, L. and Brian, G. (2001), Changes in the Standards Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases since the Daubert Decision. San Diego, CA: RAND; Conley, J.M. and Moriarty, J.C. (2007), Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Aspen Publishers Inc, pp. 58–96.

  172. 172.

    United States v. Downing, 753 F2.d 1224, 1238 (1985).

  173. 173.

    See Dixon, L. and Brian, G. (2001), Changes in the Standards Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases since the Daubert Decision. San Diego, CA: RAND.

  174. 174.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 595 (1993).

  175. 175.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 596 (1993).

  176. 176.

    Dillhoff, M. (2011), Science, Law, and Truth: Defining the Scope of the Daubert Trilogy, 86(3) Notre Dam Law Review, p. 1296.

  177. 177.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 598–601 (1993).

  178. 178.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 599 (1993).

  179. 179.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1316 (9th Cir. 1995).

  180. 180.

    General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 US 136 (1997).

  181. 181.

    Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 US 137 (1999).

  182. 182.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 595 (1993).

  183. 183.

    General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 US 136, 146 (1997).

  184. 184.

    General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 US 136, 146 (1997).

  185. 185.

    Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 US 137, 151 (1999).

  186. 186.

    Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

  187. 187.

    Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, pp. 458, 463, 471, 486. Emphasis added.

  188. 188.

    General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 US 136, 146 (1997); Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 7.

  189. 189.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 485.

  190. 190.

    Riley v. Target Corporation 2006 WL 1028773, 5 (“[f]aults in an expert’s use of differential aetiology as a methodology or lack of textual authority for his opinion go to the weigh, not the admissibility, of his testimony”); McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co. 61 F.3d 1038 (1995).

  191. 191.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, pp. 469.

  192. 192.

    Liquid Dynamics Corp. v. Vaughan Co., Inc., 449 F.3d 1209 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

  193. 193.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2006), More on Daubert and Rule 702, available at: http://www.volokh.com/posts/1152214719.shtml. Accessed on 25 June 2011.

  194. 194.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, pp. 457.

  195. 195.

    Richard Leander Ferebee Jr., et al. v. Chevron Chemical Company, 736 F.2d 1529 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

  196. 196.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 465.

  197. 197.

    Richard Leander Ferebee Jr., et al. v. Chevron Chemical Company, 736 F.2d 1529 (D.C. Cir. 1984).

  198. 198.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 US 579, 595 (1993).

  199. 199.

    General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997).

  200. 200.

    See Lust v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 89 F.3d 594, 598 (9th Cir. 1996).

  201. 201.

    In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 745 (3d Cir. 1994).

  202. 202.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 469.

  203. 203.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 464.

  204. 204.

    For illustration, refer to the position of the defence lawyers outlined in Morse, M. A. and Gaugler, A. C. (2007), Daubert Challenges to Experts in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overlooked Defense, 20 Champion.

  205. 205.

    United States v. Reicherter 318 F.Supp.2d 265 (2004).

  206. 206.

    United States v. Comite 2006 WL 3791340.

  207. 207.

    Morse, M. A. and Gaugler, A. C. (2007), Daubert Challenges to Experts in Federal Criminal Cases: An Overlooked Defense, 20 Champion, p. 21.

  208. 208.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, p. 45.

  209. 209.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, pp. 45–46.

  210. 210.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, p. 46.

  211. 211.

    Notes of the Advisory Committee, Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 702, 28 U.S.C.A.

  212. 212.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 43 F.3d 1311, 1317 (9th Cir. 1995).

  213. 213.

    General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997) (noting that in some cases a trial court “may conclude that there is simply too great an analytical gap between the data and the opinion proffered”).

  214. 214.

    Claar v. Burlington N.R.R., 29 F.3d 499 (9th Cir. 1994) (testimony excluded where the expert failed to consider other obvious causes for the plaintiff's condition). Compare Ambrosini v. Labarraque, 101 F.3d 129 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (the possibility of some uneliminated causes presents a question of weight, as long as the most obvious causes have been considered and reasonably ruled out by the expert).

  215. 215.

    Sheehan v. Daily Racing Form, Inc., 104 F.3d 940, 942 (7th Cir. 1997). See Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999) (Daubert requires the trial court to assure itself that the expert “employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field”).

  216. 216.

    Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct.1167, 1175 (1999) (Daubert’s general acceptance factor does not “help show that an expert’s testimony is reliable where the discipline itself lacks reliability, as for example, do theories grounded in any so-called generally accepted principles of astrology or necromancy.”), Moore v. Ashland Chemical, Inc., 151 F.3d 269 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc) (a clinical doctor was properly precluded from testifying about the toxicological cause of the plaintiff’s respiratory problem, where the opinion was not sufficiently grounded in scientific methodology); Sterling v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 855 F.2d 1188 (6th Cir. 1988) (rejecting testimony based on “clinical ecology” as unfounded and unreliable).

  217. 217.

    Conley, J.M. and Moriarty, J.C. (2007), Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Aspen Publishers Inc, pp 58–69.

  218. 218.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 481.

  219. 219.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 481.

  220. 220.

    FRE 702 Advisory Committee’s note; Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 482.

  221. 221.

    Crump, D. (2003), The Trouble with Daubert-Kumho: Reconsidering the Supreme Court’s Philosophy of Science, 68 Missouri Law Review, p. 15, in Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 484.

  222. 222.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, pp. 484–485.

  223. 223.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, pp. 478, 487.

  224. 224.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 487.

  225. 225.

    Bernstein, D.E. (2008), Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution, 93 Iowa Law Review, p. 485, 489.

  226. 226.

    Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 591–592 (1993) [note that the wording of the FRE 702 as provided in Daubert reflects the linguistic composition of the pre-amended FRE-702].

  227. 227.

    Notes of the Advisory Committee.

  228. 228.

    Elcock v. Kmart Corp., 233 F.3d 734, 741 (3rd Cir. 2001).

  229. 229.

    Tuf Racing Products Inc. v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 223 F3.d 585, 591 (7th Cir. 2000).

  230. 230.

    Conley, J.M. and Moriarty, J.C. (2007), Scientific and Expert Evidence. New York: Aspen Publishers Inc, pp. 59–68.

  231. 231.

    Advisory Committee Notes on FRE 706.

  232. 232.

    Advisory Committee Notes on FRE 706.

  233. 233.

    Gates Rubber Company v. Bando American, Inc., 9 F.3d 823, 841 (10th Cir. 1993).

  234. 234.

    Deason, E.E. (1998), Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses: Scientific Positivism Meets Bias and Deference, 77 Oregon Law Review, p. 64.

  235. 235.

    FRE 705.

  236. 236.

    FRE 705.

  237. 237.

    FRCP 12.2(c)(3); FRCP 16(b)(1): The defendant must, at the government’s request, give to the government a written summary of any testimony that the defendant intends to use under Rules 702, 703, or 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as evidence at trial, if: (i) the defendant requests disclosure under subdivision (a)(1)(G) and the government complies; or (ii) the defendant has given notice under Rule 12.2(b) of an intent to present expert testimony on the defendant’s mental condition. This summary must describe the witness’s opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness’s qualifications.

  238. 238.

    See FRCivP 26.

  239. 239.

    CPR 33.2 and CPR 33.3.

  240. 240.

    CPR 33.6.

  241. 241.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 297.

  242. 242.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 297.

  243. 243.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 5.

  244. 244.

    Tapper, C. (2007), Cross and Tapper on Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 336.

  245. 245.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 300–301.

  246. 246.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 300–301.

  247. 247.

    Wigmore, J. (1923). A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law. Boston: Little, Brown (1983), s. 1367; Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 300–301.

  248. 248.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 302–303.

  249. 249.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 301.

  250. 250.

    Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 305. An illustrative example from the international criminal litigation is cross-examination of expert witness Dufka by defence counsel Courtenay Griffiths in Taylor proceedings. See Prosecutor v. Taylor, Decision on Defence Application to Exclude the Evidence of Proposed Prosecution Witness Corinne Dufka or, in Alternative, to Limit its Scope and on urgent Prosecution Request for Decision, SCSL-03-1-T, 19 June 2008.

  251. 251.

    R. v. Luttrel [2004] EWCA Crim 1344.

  252. 252.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 5.

  253. 253.

    The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, p. 18.

  254. 254.

    Edmond, G. (2008), Specialised Knowledge, the Exclusionary Discretions and Reliability: Re-Assessing Incriminating Opinion Evidence, University of New South Wales Law Journal, pp. 1–2, 7, 22–23, 33; see also Edmond, G. and Roberts, A. (2011), Procedural Fairness, the Criminal Trial and Forensic Science and Medicine, Sydney Law Review; Paciocco, D.M. (2009), Unplugging Jukebox Testimony in an Adversarial System: Strategies for Changing the Tune on Partial Experts. 34 Queen’s Law Journal.

  255. 255.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, p. 50; Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 300–301.

  256. 256.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, pp. 50–51; see also Paciocco, D.M. (2009), Unplugging Jukebox Testimony in an Adversarial System: Strategies for Changing the Tune on Partial Experts. 34 Queen’s Law Journal.

  257. 257.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, p. 51; Dwyer, D. (2008). The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 302–303.

  258. 258.

    Edmond, G. (2012), Is Reliability Sufficient? The Law Commission and Expert Evidence in International and Interdisciplinary Perspective: Part 1, 16(1) International Journal of Evidence & Proof, p. 51.

  259. 259.

    Kovera, M.B. (2002), Assessment of the Commonsense Psychology Underlying Daubert, 8 Psychology, Public Policy and Law, pp. 186–196; Shellow, J.M. (2003), The Limits of Cross-Examination, 34 Seton Hall Law Review [suggesting in the article that because juries and the bench have no understanding of the scientific method, cross-examination must focus on impeaching the character of the expert witness rather than demonstrating flaws in methodology]; The Law Commission Report No 325. (2011). Report on Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (HC 829). Ordered by The House of Commons. London: The Stationary Office, pp. 5,18,71.

  260. 260.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 31.

  261. 261.

    Nijboer, J.F. (2000), Methods of Investigation and Exclusion of Evidence, in Nijboer, J.F. and Sprangers, W.J. (2000) (eds.) Harmonisation in Forensic Expertise: An Inquity into the Desirability of and Opportunities for International Standards. Leiden: Thela, pp. 431–440.

  262. 262.

    Küper, W. (1984), Historische Bemerkungen zur “freien Beweiswürdigung” im Strafpozeß, in Wasserburg, K., and Haddenhorst W. (eds.), Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit im Strafverfahren: Festgabe für Karl Peters aus Anlaß seinen 80. Geburtstages. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller; Jackson, J. D., and Summers S. J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 69.

  263. 263.

    Küper, W. (1984), Historische Bemerkungen zur “freien Beweiswürdigung” im Strafpozeß, in Wasserburg, K., and Haddenhorst W. (eds.), Wahrheit und Gerechtigkeit im Strafverfahren: Festgabe für Karl Peters aus Anlaß seinen 80. Geburtstages. Heidelberg, p. 45.

  264. 264.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 70.

  265. 265.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 57.

  266. 266.

    Jäger, J. (2008), Beweiserhebungs- und Beweisverwertungsverbote als prozessuale Regelungsinstrumente im strafverfolgenden Rechtsstaat, Goltdamner’s Archiv für Strafrecht, p. 473; Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 70.

  267. 267.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 70–71.

  268. 268.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 71.

  269. 269.

    Langbein, J.H. (1985), The German Advantage in Civil Procedure, 52 University of Chicago Law Review, pp. 836–837.

  270. 270.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 74.

  271. 271.

    Jackson, J.D., and Summers S.J. (2012), The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 75.

  272. 272.

    The Judgment (2004) of the German Federal Court of Justice, Az. 2 StR 367/04, available at: http://openjur.de/u/178316.html. Accessed on 13 December 2012; the Judgment (1998) of the Dutch Supreme Court of 27 January 1998, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie, p. 404.

  273. 273.

    The 1808 Code d’instruction criminelle, enacted soon after the French Revolution, set the underlying tenets of the French criminal proceedings, namely:

    • the rule of separation between prosecution, pre-trial instruction by an instructing judge (juge d’instruction) and judgement by a court;

    • the right of appeal (double degré de juridiction);

    • the principe de la collégialité: most non-minor offences (delits) are heard by a panel of three career magistrates and major offences (crimes) by a panel of three professional Judges and a jury of nine (first degree) or 13 (second degree) members.

    The 1808 Code d’instruction criminelle was determined to set up a strong state control on crime. Its Napoleonic influence gave overbearing powers to the public prosecutor’s services (procureur de la République), weakening the rights of persons under police detention and the instructing magistrate’s scope and independence. It was deemed necessary to review and update the 1808 Code.

    The 1958 Penal Procedure Code tries to remedy some of the previous code’s flaws:

    • it gives wider and clarified rights to defendants and to plaintiffs;

    • it also takes into account improvements made in human and social sciences and aims at striking a balance between social and individual interests;

    • it overhauls procedures in order to prevent undue delays in criminal cases

    [taken verbatim from: McKee, J.Y. (2001), Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America: France, Report of the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, Affiliated with the United Nations. Helsinki, Finland, p. 8.]

  274. 274.

    Dervieux, V., Benillouche, M., and Bachelet, O. (2008). The French System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 218–219.

  275. 275.

    For instance, a change introducing an increase in rights of accused parties during police investigations was said to lead to an increase in crime. [Dervieux, V., Benillouche, M., & Bachelet, O. (2008). The French System. In M. Delmas-Marty & J. R. Spencer (Eds.), European Criminal Procedures (p. 292). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. 220.]

  276. 276.

    Dervieux, V., Benillouche, M., and Bachelet, O. (2008). The French System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. 220.

  277. 277.

    France criminal cases are heard by different courts, depending on the nature of the offence. The 1810 Penal Code and the new 1994 redaction of the Code classify offences into three groups:

    • contraventions: very petty offences punished only by fines (minor road offences, breach of bylaws, minor assaults, noise offences etc.);

    • délits: offences of greater importance subjected to a sentence of a maximum of 10 years. Délits include theft, manslaughter, indecent assault, drug offences, fraud and deception, drunken driving, serious unintentional bodily damages etc.

    • crimes: offences subjected to custodial sentences from 10 years to a life term (murder, rape, robbery, abduction).

    [McKee, J.Y. (2001), Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America: France, Report of the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, Affiliated with the United Nations. Helsinki: HEUNI, p. 13.]

  278. 278.

    Dervieux, V., Benillouche, M., and Bachelet, O. (2008). The French System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–249.

  279. 279.

    Dervieux, V., Benillouche, M., and Bachelet, O. (2008). The French System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. 248.

  280. 280.

    McKee, J.Y. (2001), Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America: France, Report of the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, Affiliated with the United Nations. Helsinki: HEUNI, p. 13.

  281. 281.

    McKee, J.Y. (2001), Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America: France, Report of the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, Affiliated with the United Nations. Helsinki: HEUNI, p. 14.

  282. 282.

    McKee, J.Y. (2001), Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America: France, Report of the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, Affiliated with the United Nations. Helsinki: HEUNI, p. 24.

  283. 283.

    Dervieux, V., Benillouche, M., and Bachelet, O. (2008). The French System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. 233.

  284. 284.

    Hors les cas où la loi en dispose autrement, les infractions peuvent être établies par tout mode de preuve et le juge décide d’après son intime conviction. Le juge ne peut fonder sa décision que sur des preuves qui lui sont apportées au cours des débats et contradictoirement discutées devant lui.

  285. 285.

    Dervieux, V., Benillouche, M., and Bachelet, O. (2008). The French System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. 233.

  286. 286.

    Dervieux, V., Benillouche, M., and Bachelet, O. (2008). The French System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. 263.

  287. 287.

    Dervieux, V., Benillouche, M., and Bachelet, O. (2008). The French System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, p. 262.

  288. 288.

    Taylor, R.F. (1996), A Comparative Study of Expert Testimony in France and the United States: Philosophical Underpinnings, History, Practise, and Procedure, 31 Texas International Law Journal, pp. 187–190.

  289. 289.

    Taylor, R.F. (1996), A Comparative Study of Expert Testimony in France and the United States: Philosophical Underpinnings, History, Practise, and Procedure, 31 Texas International Law Journal, p. 190.

  290. 290.

    McKee, J.Y. (2001), Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America: France, Report of the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, Affiliated with the United Nations. Helsinki: HEUNI, p. 25.

  291. 291.

    CPP Art. 156.

  292. 292.

    More experts can be appointed if the judge finds that circumstances call for it [CPP, Art. 159]. For specific offences, for which the law prescribes obligatory psychiatric expertise, the law requires the appointment of two experts [CPP, Art. 712–21].

  293. 293.

    CPP Art. 157.

  294. 294.

    CPP Art. 161.

  295. 295.

    Spencer, J.R. (1991), The Neutral Expert – An Implausible Bogey, 1 Criminal Law Review, p. 109.

  296. 296.

    CPP Art. 166; Loi no 71–498 du 29 juin 1971 relative aux experts judiciaires; Décret no 2004–1463 du décembre 2004 relatif aux experts judiciaires.

  297. 297.

    CPP Art. 168.

  298. 298.

    Spencer, J.R. (1991), The Neutral Expert – An Implausible Bogey, 1 Criminal Law Review, p. 108.

  299. 299.

    Bouloc, B., Levasseur, G. and Stefani, F. (2012), Procédure Penalé 2012. Paris: Dalloz-Sirey, p. 602.

  300. 300.

    Browne, N.M., Williamson, C.L. and Barkacs, L.L. (2002), The Perspectival Nature of Expert Testimony in United States, England, Korea, and France, 18 Connecticut Journal of International Law, pp. 99–100.

  301. 301.

    Taylor, R.F. (1996), A Comparative Study of Expert Testimony in France and the United States: Philosophical Underpinnings, History, Practise, and Procedure, 31 Texas International Law Journal, pp. 207–208.

  302. 302.

    Spencer, J.R. (1991), The Neutral Expert – An Implausible Bogey, 1 Criminal Law Review, p. 108.

  303. 303.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 292.

  304. 304.

    It sets apart from each other the bodies carrying out the tasks of prosecution and judgment: the public prosecutor’s office and the court judges. [Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 308.]In addition, inspired by the Anglo-Saxon practice of cross-examination, § 239 of the StPO provides for the possibility of substituting the regular interrogation of witnesses by the court with party examination and cross-examination. This option is available whenever prosecution and defence agree to it; the court cannot deny a joint motion of the parties, but retains the right to ask additional questions of witnesses. In practice, however, this procedure is never employed because § 239 does not fit into the structure of the German criminal process. Moreover, parties have no expertise in developing their case through questioning witnesses, and are even less knowledgeable in the art of cross-examination. As such, judges regard motions under § 239 as expressions of criticism of their own interrogative methods in seeking the truth [See Frase, R.S., and Weigend, T. (1995), German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions? 18 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, pp. 357–358].

  305. 305.

    For instance, for a conviction, agreement of at least two of the three judges on the bench is necessary. One judge being professional, two lay judges may veto a conviction. However, this is virtually unheard of. [Frase, R.S., and Weigend, T. (1995), German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions? 18 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, p. 321.]

  306. 306.

    Frase, R.S., and Weigend, T. (1995), German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions? 18 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, p. 342.

  307. 307.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 309, 325.

  308. 308.

    Frase, R.S., and Weigend, T. (1995), German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions? 18 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, p. 343.

  309. 309.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 309.

  310. 310.

    Frase, R.S., and Weigend, T. (1995), German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions? 18 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, p. 343.

  311. 311.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 309.

  312. 312.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 309.

  313. 313.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 325.

  314. 314.

    StPO §§ 48-71.

  315. 315.

    StPO §§ 72-85.

  316. 316.

    StPO §§ 96-92.

  317. 317.

    StPO §§ 249-256.

  318. 318.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 326.

  319. 319.

    StPO § 245.

  320. 320.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 327.

  321. 321.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 327.

  322. 322.

    StPO § 261: “Über das Ergebnis der Beweisaufnahme entscheidet das Gericht nach seiner freien, aus dem Inbegriff der Verhandlung geschöpften Überzeugung.”

  323. 323.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 328.

  324. 324.

    Frase, R.S., and Weigend, T. (1995), German Criminal Justice as a Guide to American Law Reform: Similar Problems, Better Solutions? 18 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, p. 344.

  325. 325.

    Juy-Birmann, R., and Biermann, J. (2008), The German System, in M. Delmas-Marty and J.R. Spencer (eds.), European Criminal Procedures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 328.

  326. 326.

    StPO § 72.

  327. 327.

    Bohlander, M. (2012), Principles of German Criminal Procedure. Oxford: Hart Publishing, p. 147.

  328. 328.

    Bohlander, M. (2012), Principles of German Criminal Procedure. Oxford: Hart Publishing, p. 147.

  329. 329.

    StPO § 73.

  330. 330.

    StPO § 78.

  331. 331.

    StPO § 73.

  332. 332.

    See as an example Gewerbeordnung § 36 [Sie sind darauf zu vereidigen, daß sie ihre Sachverständigenaufgaben unabhängig, weisungsfrei, persönlich, gewissenhaft und unparteiisch erfüllen].

  333. 333.

    StPO § 78: “Der Richter hat, soweit ihm dies erforderlich erscheint, die Tätigkeit der Sachverständigen zu leiten.”

  334. 334.

    Bohlander, M. (2012), Principles of German Criminal Procedure. Oxford: Hart Publishing, p. 147.

  335. 335.

    Bohlander, M. (2012), Principles of German Criminal Procedure. Oxford: Hart Publishing, p. 147.

  336. 336.

    Dwyer, D. (2008), The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 196.

  337. 337.

    StPO §§ 219-220.

  338. 338.

    StPO § 83.

  339. 339.

    StPO § 244.

  340. 340.

    Esposito, A. and Safferling, C. (2008), Report – Recent Case Law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in Strafsachen (Criminal Law). 9 German Law Journal, p. 697.

  341. 341.

    See the Judgment (2004) of the German Federal Court of Justice, Az. 2 StR 367/04, available at: http://openjur.de/u/178316.html. Accessed on 13 December 2012.

  342. 342.

    Esposito, A. and Safferling, C. (2008), Report – Recent Case Law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in Strafsachen (Criminal Law). 9 German Law Journal, p. 694.

  343. 343.

    Esposito, A. and Safferling, C. (2008), Report – Recent Case Law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in Strafsachen (Criminal Law). 9 German Law Journal, pp. 694-695.

  344. 344.

    Esposito, A. and Safferling, C. (2008), Report – Recent Case Law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in Strafsachen (Criminal Law). 9 German Law Journal, p. 695.

  345. 345.

    See the Judgment (2004) of the German Federal Court of Justice, Az. 2 StR 367/04, para. 22 [wissenschaftliche Literatur], available at: http://openjur.de/u/178316.html. Accessed on 13 December 2012; Esposito, A. and Safferling, C. (2008), Report – Recent Case Law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in Strafsachen (Criminal Law). 9 German Law Journal, p. 695.

  346. 346.

    Esposito, A. and Safferling, C. (2008), Report – Recent Case Law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in Strafsachen (Criminal Law). 9 German Law Journal, p. 695.

  347. 347.

    Esposito, A. and Safferling, C. (2008), Report – Recent Case Law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in Strafsachen (Criminal Law). 9 German Law Journal, pp. 695-696.

  348. 348.

    Esposito, A. and Safferling, C. (2008), Report – Recent Case Law of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in Strafsachen (Criminal Law). 9 German Law Journal, p. 697.

  349. 349.

    Ugolovno-Processualniy Kodeks.

  350. 350.

    Барабаш, А.С. (2009), Публичное начало российского уголовного процесса. Saint-Petersburg: Юридический центр Пресс, p. 5.

  351. 351.

    See Барабаш, А.С. (2009), Публичное начало российского уголовного процесса. Saint-Petersburg: Юридический центр Пресс; Загорский, Г.И. и Быковская, Е.В. (2010), Уголовно-процессуальное право (Уголовный процесс). Moscow: Wolters Kluwer.

  352. 352.

    “Верховный суд ограничил присяжных”. Российская газета, 5 декабря 2012, available at: http://www.rg.ru/printable/2012/12/05/prisyajnie-site.html. Accessed on 16 January 2013.

  353. 353.

    Severance, A., Old Habits Die Hard: Alexandr Nikitin, The European Court of Human Rights, and Criminal Procedure in the Russian Federation, Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, Winter 2002, p. 179.

  354. 354.

    Severance, A. (2002), Old Habits Die Hard: Alexandr Nikitin, The European Court of Human Rights, and Criminal Procedure in the Russian Federation, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, p. 180.

  355. 355.

    Article 1 of the Federal Law “On the Procuracy:” “Прокуратура Российской Федерации - единая федеральная централизованная система органов, осуществляющих от имени Российской Федерации надзор за соблюдением Конституции Российской Федерации и исполнением законов, действующих на территории Российской Федерации.”

  356. 356.

    Greenberg, J.D. (2009), The Kremlin’s Eye: The 21st Century Prokuratura in the Russian Authoritarian Tradition, 45 Stanford Journal of International Law, p. 1.

  357. 357.

    Sledstvenniy Komitet.

  358. 358.

    Severance, A. (2002), Old Habits Die Hard: Alexandr Nikitin, The European Court of Human Rights, and Criminal Procedure in the Russian Federation, 25 Boston College International and Comparative Law Review, pp. 180-181.

  359. 359.

    Vnutrennee ubezhdenie.

  360. 360.

    Svoboda ocenki dokazatelstv.

  361. 361.

    UPK Art. 17.

  362. 362.

    Федеральный Закон “О государственной судебно-экспертной деятельности в Российской Федерации.”

  363. 363.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, p. 116.

  364. 364.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, p. 104.

  365. 365.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, p. 106.

  366. 366.

    The law specifies the content of the order appointing an expert. Annex 117 to the UPK comprises obligatory elements of the content of the order:

    • reason to appoint an expert;

    • the type of the expertise required;

    • the name of the agency or the name of the expert;

    • questions posed for the expertise;

    • the list of the presented material for the expertise.

    Ordinarily, the order is a very detailed document

  367. 367.

    There are a few expert agencies dependent on the scientific specialisation, which are parts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Justice or other governmental structures of the Russian Federation.

  368. 368.

    Article 57 of the UPK allows the appointment of an expert from outside the governmental structures.

  369. 369.

    UPK Art. 199.

  370. 370.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, p. 105.

  371. 371.

    UPK Art. 70.

  372. 372.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, p. 129.

  373. 373.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, pp. 107-116.

  374. 374.

    Art. 204 of the UPK:

    В заключении эксперта указывается:

    1. a.

      дата, время и место производства судебной экспертизы;

    2. b.

      основания производства судебной экспертизы;

    3. c.

      должностное лицо, назначившее судебную экспертизу;

    4. d.

      сведения об экспертном учреждении, а также фамилия, имя и отчество эксперта, его образование, специальность, стаж работы, ученая степень и (или) ученое звание, занимаемая должность;

    5. e.

      сведения о предупреждении эксперта об ответственности за дачу заведомо ложного заключения;

    6. f.

      вопросы, поставленные перед экспертом;

    7. g.

      объекты исследований и материалы, представленные для производства судебной экспертизы;

    8. h.

      данные о лицах, присутствовавших при производстве судебной экспертизы;

    9. i.

      содержание и результаты исследований с указанием примененных методик;

    10. j.

      выводы по поставленным перед экспертом вопросам и их обоснование.

  375. 375.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, p. 155.

  376. 376.

    Карлов, В.Я. (2008), Судебная экспертиза в уголовном процессе Российской Федерации. Moscow: Экзамен, p. 126.

  377. 377.

    Карлов, В.Я. (2008), Судебная экспертиза в уголовном процессе Российской Федерации. Moscow: Экзамен, pp. 128-129.

  378. 378.

    This expertise is called complex or integrated expertise.

  379. 379.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, p. 155; Карлов, В.Я. (2008), Судебная экспертиза в уголовном процессе Российской Федерации. Moscow: Экзамен, p. 130.

  380. 380.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, p. 162.

  381. 381.

    Карлов, В.Я. (2008), Судебная экспертиза в уголовном процессе Российской Федерации. Moscow: Экзамен, p. 131.

  382. 382.

    Сорокотягина, Д.А., Сорокотягин, И.Н. (2009), Теория судебной экспертизы. Rostov on Don: Феникс, p. 157.

  383. 383.

    Карлов, В.Я. (2008), Судебная экспертиза в уголовном процессе Российской Федерации. Moscow: Экзамен, p. 133.

  384. 384.

    Карлов, В.Я. (2008), Судебная экспертиза в уголовном процессе Российской Федерации. Moscow: Экзамен, p. 136.

  385. 385.

    Карлов, В.Я. (2008), Судебная экспертиза в уголовном процессе Российской Федерации. Moscow: Экзамен, p. 136.

  386. 386.

    Карлов, В.Я. (2008), Судебная экспертиза в уголовном процессе Российской Федерации. Moscow: Экзамен, pp. 137-139.

  387. 387.

    Карлов, В.Я. (2008), Судебная экспертиза в уголовном процессе Российской Федерации. Moscow: Экзамен, p. 139.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Artur Appazov

Authors
  1. Artur Appazov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Appazov, A. (2016). Expert Evidence in Domestic Jurisdictions. In: Expert Evidence and International Criminal Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24340-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24340-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-24338-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-24340-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation