Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction to Basic Concepts and Methods
- 2 Burdens of Proof in Legal Reasoning
- 3 Presumption in Legal Reasoning
- 4 Shifting the Burden of Proof in Witness Testimony
- 5 Burden of Proof in Dialogue Systems
- 6 Solving the Problems of Burden of Proof
- 7 Burdens of Proof in Different Types of Dialogue
- 8 Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
4 - Shifting the Burden of Proof in Witness Testimony
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 July 2014
- Frontmatter
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction to Basic Concepts and Methods
- 2 Burdens of Proof in Legal Reasoning
- 3 Presumption in Legal Reasoning
- 4 Shifting the Burden of Proof in Witness Testimony
- 5 Burden of Proof in Dialogue Systems
- 6 Solving the Problems of Burden of Proof
- 7 Burdens of Proof in Different Types of Dialogue
- 8 Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
In the previous chapters we have discussed how to represent the operation of critical questions in a formal and computational model that can incorporate argumentation schemes as well as their accompanying critical questions. In order to illustrate how this works the example of the scheme for argument from expert opinion has been used. The problem is to classify the critical questions as assumptions or exceptions in order to properly reflect the distribution of the burden of proof between the party who put forward the argument and the other party, the respondent who is raising critical questions about the argument. Is this problem merely a technical problem of how to model argumentation by the use of defeasible argumentation schemes? Or is it a problem that could arise in a real case of argumentation? In Chapter 4, a legal case concerning how to logically represent critical questions appropriate for argument from witness testimony is studied that illustrates the problem of how to arrive at a decision to properly assign a burden of proof to the one side or the other.
In this case, the Oregon Supreme Court overturned the previous procedures for determining the admissibility of eyewitness identification evidence. The decision to change the law was based on recent research in the social sciences concerning the reliability of eyewitness identification, and by considerations put to the court by the Innocence Network, an organization dedicated to the study of unjust convictions. In some cases it can be quite difficult for the courts to make a decision on burden of proof, and in some of these cases a ruling is made that can act as a precedent when the same kind of decision about burden of proof arises in a comparable case. In Chapter 4, a more challenging kind of case is studied in which a change was made in the normal way of dealing with burden of proof in criminal trials. This change was prompted by a gradually growing body of scientific evidence suggesting that witness testimony evidence is much more fallible in certain respects than was previously thought.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Burden of Proof, Presumption and Argumentation , pp. 122 - 144Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2014