Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Scientific Evidence to Juridical Proof

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
P5 Medicine and Justice

  • 641 Accesses

Abstract

The valorization of scientific evidence provided by the expert as evidence in the trial framework has been revised, as well as the role of the judge, in light of the assumptions derived from the Daubert Judgment. The criterion of “general acceptance” of evidence obtained from the published literature in journals subjected to peer-review and the expert’s reputation can be helpful, particularly in cases where there is an open debate within the scientific community. It is the judge, however, who must take on the role of gatekeeper of the validity of evidence, to consent to its probatory admissibility, through a preliminary comprehension of the methods of science. The evaluation of reliability and admissibility of evidence is also reflected in the areas of medical malpractice and professional liability. Standards of care may be derived from an analysis not only of the guidelines, but also of other scientific sources to be subjected to the usual proof of admissibility, as well as new research paths that take account of personalized medicine and the application of guidelines to the individual.

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

Access this chapter

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 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cass. pen., sez. IV, 13 dicembre 2010,. n. 43786, Dir.pen.proc. 2011, 1341, ann. by P. Tonini.

  2. 2.

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

  3. 3.

    See Kumho Tire Co v Carmichael, 526 US 137, 119 S. (1999).

  4. 4.

    See also Tillers 2011 [8], who recommends that an agreement be reached between mathematicians, logic and legal professionals upon the purposes that any given mathematical or formal analysis of inconclusive argument about uncertain factual hypotheses can serve.

  5. 5.

    Cass. sez. un. 12 luglio 2002, Franzese, Foro italiano, 2002, II, 601 ann. by Di Giovine.

  6. 6.

    509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993).

  7. 7.

    293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

  8. 8.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993), at 590.

  9. 9.

    Kumho Tire Co. V. Carmichael (97-1709) 526 U.S. 137 (1999) at 152.

  10. 10.

    General Electric Co. v. Joiner 522 U.S. 136 (1997).

  11. 11.

    Cass. pen., Sez. IV, 13 December 2010,. n. 43786, in Dir.pen.proc., 2011, p. 1341, annotated by P. Tonini, especially point 16. See also: Cass. pen. Sez. IV, 29 January 2013,, n. 16237, rv. 255105, Cantore.

  12. 12.

    See Cass. pen., sez. IV, 24 maggio 2012, n. 33311, in De [ure; Cass.pen., sez. IV, 22 marzo 2012, n. 24997, rv. 25330; 33; Cass. pen., sez. IV, 21 novembre 2014, n. 11128, in De [ure.

  13. 13.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993), at 594.

  14. 14.

    463 F.3d 710 (7th Cir. 2006).

  15. 15.

    509 U.S. 579 (1993), at 596 (citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 61 (1987).

  16. 16.

    Faigman quotes from Rider v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 295 F.3d 1194 (11th Cir. 2002) (“Given time, information, and resources, courts may only admit the state of science as it is. Courts are cautioned not to admit speculation, conjecture, or inference that cannot be supported by sound scientific principles. ‘The courtroom is not the place for scientific guesswork, even of the inspired sort. Law lags science; it does not lead it.’”) [quoting Rosen v. Ciba-Geigy Corp., 78 F.3d 316, 319 (7th Cir. 1996)].

  17. 17.

    ECHR, Case of Engel and Others V. The Netherlands (Application no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72), Judgement, 8 June 1976.

  18. 18.

    Committee to Advise the Public Health Service on Clinical Practice Guidelines, Institute of Medicine, Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program 8 (Marilyn J. Field & Kathleen N. Lohr, eds. 1994).

  19. 19.

    Me.Rev.Stat.Ann. tit. 24, §§ 2971–2978 (repealed 1999).

  20. 20.

    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. 111–148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010) (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of the Internal Revenue Code and 42 U.S.C.).

  21. 21.

    U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Screening for Carotid Artery Stenosis: U.S. PreventiveServices Task Force Recommendation Statement, 147 Annals Internal Med. 854–59 (2007) as quoted by Wong et al. 2011, 727.

  22. 22.

    Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, Evidence-Based Medicine. A New Approach to Teaching the Practice of Medicine, 268 JAMA 2420–25 (1992).

  23. 23.

    Inst. Of Med., Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust 25–26 (Nat’l Acad. Press 2011), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordid=13058.

  24. 24.

    Daubert V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) at 593.

  25. 25.

    Daubert  V. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) at 594: «Additionally, in the case of a particular scientific technique, the court ordinarily should consider the known or potential rate of error, see, e.g., United States v. Smith,869 F. 2d 348, 353-354 (CA7 1989)».

  26. 26.

    «A “reliability assessment does not require, although it does permit, explicit identification of a relevant scientific community and an express determination of a particular degree of acceptance within that community” …Widespread acceptance can be an important factor in ruling particular evidence admissible, and “a known technique which has been able to attract only minimal support within the community”».

References

  1. Stella F (2003) La costruzione giuridica della scienza: sicurezza e salute negli ambienti di lavoro. In: Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, pp 55–70

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fenton N (2011) Science and law: Improve statistics in court. Nature 479(7371):36–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Faigman DL (2015) Bringing scientific peer review to scientific evidence expert evidence report. The Bureau of National Affairs, USA

    Google Scholar 

  4. Berger MA (2011) The admissibility of expert testimony. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference manual on scientific evidence, 3rd edn, pp 11–36. The National Academic Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  5. Breyer S (2011) Introduction. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd edn, pp 1–9. The National Academic Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  6. Fiandaca G (2005) Il giudice di fronte alle controversie tecnico scientifiche. Il diritto e il processo penale In: Diritto e questioni pubbliche, vol 5. http://www.dirittoequestionipubbliche.org/page/2005_n5/mono_G_Fiandaca.pdf

  7. Tribe LH (1971) Trial by mathematics: precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review 84;6:1329–1393 (see also the Italian Translation in Stella 2004, 181–257)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Tillers P (2011) Trial by Mathematics—reconsidered Law. Probabili Risk 10:167–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goodstein D (2011) How Science Works. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd edn, pp 37–54. The National Academic Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  10. Stella F (2005) Il giudice corpuscolariano. La cultura delle prove, Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  11. Giaretta P (2015) Alcune considerazioni generali sula nozione di prova scientifica. In: Marta and Giulio Ubertis (eds) Prova scientifica, ragionamento probatorio e decisione giudiziale. Jovene, Napoli, p 85–91

    Google Scholar 

  12. Stella F (2004) I saperi del giudice. La causalità e il ragionevole dubbio, Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  13. Faigman DL (1995) Mapping the Labyrinth of Scientific Evidence. 46 Hastings L.J., California, pp 555–579

    Google Scholar 

  14. Forti G (2015) Saluto introduttivo. In: Bertolino M, Ubertis G (eds) Prova scientifica, ragionamento probatorio e decisione giudiziale. Jovene, Napoli, pp 3–7

    Google Scholar 

  15. Forti G (2015) Il “quadro in movimento” della colpa penale del medico, tra riforme auspicate e riforme attuate. Diritto penale e processo; XXI(6): 738–742

    Google Scholar 

  16. Forti G, Catino M, D’Alessandro F, Mazzucato C, Varraso G (2010) Il problema della medicina difensiva. Una proposta di riforma in materia di responsabilità penale nell’ambito dell’attività sanitaria e gestione del contenzioso legato al rischio clinico. ETS, Pisa

    Google Scholar 

  17. Faigman DL, Monahan J, Slobogin C (2014) Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony. The University of Chicago Law Review 81:417–480

    Google Scholar 

  18. Faigman DL (2006) Judges as Amateur Scientists. Boston U L Rev 86:1207–1225

    Google Scholar 

  19. Faigman DL, Porter E, Saks MJ (1994) Check Your Crystal Ball at the Courthouse Door, Please: Exploring the Past, Understanding the Present, and Worrying About the Future of Scientific Evidence. 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 1799, Hastings College of the Law, University of California

    Google Scholar 

  20. Giunta F (2015) Questioni scientifiche e prova scientifica tra categorie sostanziali e regole di giudizio. In: Bertolino M, Ubertis G (eds) Prova scientifica, ragionamento probatorio e decisione giudiziale. Jovene, Napoli, pp 55–84

    Google Scholar 

  21. Thomas WA (1986) Some Observations by a Scientist. F.R.D 115:142–144

    Google Scholar 

  22. Gianelli PC, Edward JI, Joseph LP (2011) Reference Guide on Forensic Identification Expertise. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd edn, pp 55–127. The National Academic Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  23. Stella F (2000) Leggi scientifiche e spiegazione causale nel diritto penale, 2nd edn. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  24. Canzio G (2005) Prova scientifica, ricerca della “verità” e decisione giudiziaria nel processo penale. In: Decisione giudiziaria e verità scientifica Quaderno n. 8 della Riv. trim. dir. e proc. civ., Milano, 55–79

    Google Scholar 

  25. Stella F (2003) Giustizia e modernità. Le ragioni dell’innocente e la tutela delle vittime, 3rd edn. Giuffrè, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  26. Berger MA (2005) What has a decade of Daubert wrought? Am J Public Health 95(Suppl 1):S59–S65

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Forti G (2006) Accesso alle informazioni sul rischio e responsabilità: una lettura del principio di precauzione. Criminalia, pp 155–225

    Google Scholar 

  28. Carel H, Kidd IJ (2014) Epistemic injustice in healthcare: a philosophial analysis. Med Health Care Philos 17(4):529–540

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fricker M (2007) Epistemic injustice power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Andrerson E (2012) Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions. Soc Epistemol 26(2):163–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Braithwaite J (2011) The essence of responsive regulation. In: Fasken Lecture, pp 475–522

    Google Scholar 

  32. Begel J (1995) Maine physician practice guidelines: implications for medical malpractice litigation. Maine Law Rev 69–103

    Google Scholar 

  33. Rosoff AJ (2012) The role of clinical practice guidelines in healthcare reform: an update. Ann Health Law 21:21–33

    Google Scholar 

  34. Avraham R (2011) Clinical practice guidelines: the warped incentives in the U.S. healthcare system. Am J Law Med 37(1):7–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rosoff AJ (2001) Evidence-based medicine and the law: the courts confront clinical practice guidelines. J Health Polit Policy Law 26(2):327–368

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Wong JB, Lawrence OG, Oscar AC (2011) Reference Guide on Medical Testimony. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd edn, pp 678–745 The National Academic Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ferrara SD, Baccino E, Bajanowski T, Boscolo-Berto R, Castellano M, De Angel R, Pauliukevičius A, Ricci P, Vanezis P, Vieira DN, Viel G, Villanueva E (2013) EALM working group on medical malpractice. Malpractice and medical liability. European guidelines on methods of ascertainment and criteria of evaluation. Int J Legal Med 127(3):545–557

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. FDA (2013) Paving the way for personalized medicine: FDA’s role in a new era of medical product development. Available via DIALOG. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/scienceresearch/specialtopics/personalizedmedicine/ucm372421.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2016

  39. Caputo M (2012) Filo d’Arianna o flauto magico? Linee guida e checklist nel sistema della responsabilità per colpa medica. Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale 3:875–923

    Google Scholar 

  40. Di Landro AR (2009) La colpa medica negli Stati Uniti e in Italia. Il ruolo del diritto penale e il confronto col sistema civile, Giappichelli, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  41. Williams CL (2004) Evidence-based medicine in the law beyond clinical practice guidelines: what effect will ebm have on the standard of Care? Wash & Lee. L Rev 61:479–533

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mehlman MJ (2012) Medical practice guidelines as malpractice safe harbors. J Law Med Ethics 2(2):286–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sniderman AD, Furberg CD (2009) Why guideline-making requires reform. JAMA 301(4):429–431

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Eddy DM (2001) The use of evidence and cost effectiveness by the courts: how can it help improve health care? J Health Polit Policy Law 26(2):387–408

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Trail WR, Brad AA (1995–1996) Government created Medical Practice Guidelines: the Opening of Pandora’s Box. J.L. & Health 10:231–258

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pope TM (2012) Physicians and safe harbor legal immunity. Ann Health Law, pp 121–135

    Google Scholar 

  47. Finder JM (2000) The future of practice guidelines: should they constitute conclusive evidence of the standard of care? Health Matrix Clevel 10(1):67–117

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mulrow CD, Lohr KN (2001) Proof and policy from medical research evidence. J Health Polit Policy Law 26(2):249–266

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Walker L, John M (1988) Social Facts: Scientific Methodology as Legal Precedent. Cal L Rev 76:877

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal Sciences, Catholic University of Milano, Largo a. Gemelli 1, 20123, Milan, Italy

    Gabrio Forti

Authors
  1. Gabrio Forti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabrio Forti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal and Occupational Medicine, Toxicology and Public Health, University-Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy

    Santo Davide Ferrara

Additional information

Thanks to Dr. Pierpaolo Astorina Marino for providing updated information on the current debate in the U.S.A. on the use of clinical practice guidelines in medical malpractice cases.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Forti, G. (2017). From Scientific Evidence to Juridical Proof. In: Ferrara, S. (eds) P5 Medicine and Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67092-8_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation