Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Evidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part II Convergences between Systems
- Part III On Evidential Inferences
- Part IV Expert Evidence
- 12 From Institutional to Epistemic Authority: Rethinking Court-Appointed Experts
- 13 Latent Justice
- 14 Prevention and Education
- 15 Evidentiary Practices and Risks of Wrongful Conviction
- Part V Standards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
15 - Evidentiary Practices and Risks of Wrongful Conviction
An Empirical Perspective
from Part IV - Expert Evidence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2022
Book contents
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Evidential Legal Reasoning
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Introduction
- Part I Evidence As an Area of Knowledge
- Part II Convergences between Systems
- Part III On Evidential Inferences
- Part IV Expert Evidence
- 12 From Institutional to Epistemic Authority: Rethinking Court-Appointed Experts
- 13 Latent Justice
- 14 Prevention and Education
- 15 Evidentiary Practices and Risks of Wrongful Conviction
- Part V Standards of Evidence As Decision-Making Rules
- Index
- References
Summary
The study of one type of error—the conviction of innocent people—has gained enormous importance, attracting increasing academic research and indeed giving birth to an activism geared towards obtaining the exoneration of innocent victims of unjust court convictions. One of the issues that has produced the greatest number of studies has been identifying factors that increase the probability that convictions of innocent people will occur. Among its results is the consensus that a group of "evidentiary practices" exists that may explain the errors. The present work sets out to describe, from the evidence available, the most problematic evidentiary practices in relation to the use of expert evidence. According to the empirical data available, this is one of the most relevant factors in the system’s production of wrong decisions. Based on a more refined diagnosis of which practices are most problematic in the use of this evidence, I hope to make it possible to gauge the system’s weaknesses. This will allow me to develop proposals and strategies for risk prevention and minimization. Diminishing and anticipating errors not only seems a realistic goal or a reasonable aspiration, but also an imperative for the system
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Evidential Legal ReasoningCrossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions, pp. 323 - 358Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Arellano, J. (2017). Desafíos de la reforma procesal penal en Chile: análisis retrospectivo a más de una década, Santiago: Centro de Estudios de Justicia de las Américas.Google Scholar
Beecher-Monas, E. (2007). Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Blume, J. and Helm, R. (2014). The Unexonerated: Factually Innocent Defendants Who Plead Guilty. Cornell Law Review, 113, 157–91.Google Scholar
Castillo, I. (2013). Enjuiciando al Proceso Penal Chileno desde el Inocentrismo (algunos apuntes sobre la necesidad de tomarse en serio a los inocentes). Revista Política Criminal, 8(15), 249–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cutler, B. and Zapf, P. (2014). Introduction: The Definition, Breadth, and Importance of Forensic Psychology, in Cutler, B., Zapf, P. (editors in chief), APA Handbook of Forensic Psychology (Vol. 1), Washington: American Psychological Association, xvii–xxii.Google Scholar
Dirección de Estudios de la Corte Suprema (2017). Peritajes en Chile, Santiago: Corte Suprema.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2010). Admisibilidad de la prueba pericial en juicios orales: un modelo para armar en la jurisprudencia nacional, in Accatino, D, ed., Formación y valoración de la prueba en el proceso penal, Santiago: Abeledo Perrot, 45–86.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2015). Algunas lecciones a partir de cuatro casos de condenas de inocentes en Chile. Revista de Derecho Universidad Católica del Norte, 22(1), 149–208.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2016). Los informes en derecho nacional y su inadmisibilidad como prueba a juicio en el proceso penal chileno, Revista de Derecho Universidad Austral, XXIX(1), 297–327.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2017a). Los recursos de revisión y la condena de inocentes en Chile: Una aproximación empírica en el período 2007–2016. Doctrina y Jurisprudencia Penal, 30, 3–40.Google Scholar
Duce, M. (2017b). Los reconocimientos oculares: una aproximación empírica a su funcionamiento y algunas recomendaciones para su mejora. Política Criminal, 12(23), 291–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duce, M. (2018). Una aproximación empírica al uso y prácticas de la prueba pericial en el proceso penal chileno a la luz de su impacto en los errores del sistema. Política Criminal, 13(25), 42–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmond, G. (2011). Actual Innocents? Legal Limitations and Their Implications for Forensic Science and Medicine. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 43(2–3), 177–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmond, G. (2013). Introduction: Expert Evidence in Report and Courts. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 45(3), 248–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edmond, G. (2015). Forensic Science Evidence and the Conditions for Rational (Jury) Evaluation. Melbourne University Law Review, 39(1), 77–127.Google Scholar
Ferrer, J. (2010). La prueba es libertad, pero no tanto. Una teoría de la prueba cuasi-benthamiana, in Accatino, D., ed., Formación y valoración de la prueba en el proceso penal, Santiago: Abeledo Perrot, 3–19.Google Scholar
Findley, K. (2011–2012). Adversarial Inquisitions: Rethinking the Search for the Truth, New York Law School Law Review, 56, 912–41.Google Scholar
Forst, B. (2013). Wrongful Convictions in a World of Miscarriages of Justice, Huff, R. and Killias, M., eds., Wrongful Conviction and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems, New York: Routledge, 15–43.Google Scholar
Freckelton, I. (2009). Scientific Evidence, in Freckelton, I., and Selby, H., eds., Expert Evidence, 4th ed., Victoria: Thomson Reuters, 1120–36.Google Scholar
Freckelton, I., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Horan, J. and McKimmie, B. (2016). Expert Evidence and Criminal Jury Trials, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee Working Group (2004). Report on the Prevention of Miscarriages of Justice, Canada: Department of Justice.Google Scholar
FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee (2011). The Path to Justice: Preventing Wrongful Convictions, Canada: FPT Heads of Prosecutions Committee.Google Scholar
Garret, B. (2011). Convicting the Innocent, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garret, B. and Naufeld, P. (2009). Invalid Forensic Testimony and Wrongful Convictions. Virginia Law Review, 95(1), 1–97.Google Scholar
Gascón, M. (2013). Prueba Científica. Un Mapa de Retos, in Vázquez, C. ed., Estándares de Prueba y Prueba Científica, Madrid: Marcial Pons, 181–202.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, G. (2013). Wrongful Convictions in Switzerland: A Problem of Summary Proceedings. University of Cincinnati Law Review, 80(4), 1145–65.Google Scholar
Gold, A. (2003). Expert Evidence in Criminal Law: The Scientific Approach, Canada: Irving Law.Google Scholar
Gould, J., Carrano, J., Leo, R. and Hail Jares, K. (2014). Predicting Erroneous Convictions. Iowa Law Review, 99, 471–522.Google Scholar
Gould, J., Carrano, J, Leo, R. and Hail Jares, K. (2014). Innocent Defendants: Divergent Cases Outcomes and What They Teach Us, in Zalman, M. and Carrano, J., eds., Wrongful Conviction and Criminal Justice Reform, New York: Routledge, 73–89.Google Scholar
Gould, J., Carrano, J, Leo, R. and Young, J. (2013) Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice, USA, National Institute of Justice. Available at: www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/241389.pdf.Google Scholar
Gould, J. and Leo, R. (2016). The Path to Exoneration, University of San Francisco Law Research Paper, 2016-3.Google Scholar
Gross, S. (2008). Convicting the Innocent. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 4, 173–92.Google Scholar
Gross, S. (2008). Convicting the Innocent, Working Paper no. 103, University of Michigan Law School.Google Scholar
Gross, S., O’Brien, B., Hu, C. and Kennedy, E. H. (2014). Rate of False Convictions of Criminal Defendants Who Are Sentenced to Death. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 11(20), 7230–5.Google Scholar
Haack, S. (2003). Inquiry and Advocacy, Fallibilism and Finality: Culture and Inference in Science and the Law. Law, Probability and Risk, 2, 205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirshberg, M., (1969). La Sentencia Errónea en el Proceso Penal, Banzhaf, T. trans., Buenos Aires: Ediciones Jurídicas Europa-América.Google Scholar
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2005). Forensic Science on Trial, London: The Stationery Office Limited.Google Scholar
Huff, R. and Killias, M., eds. (2010). Wrongful Conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Huff, R. and Killias, M., eds. (2013). Wrongful Convictions and Miscarriages of Justice: Causes and Remedies in North American and European Criminal Justice Systems, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jiahong, H. (2016) Back from the Dead: Criminal Justice and Wrongful Convictions in China, Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
King, J. (2013). Beyond Life and Liberty: The Evolving Right to Counsel. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 48, 1–48.Google Scholar
Mauet, T. (2007). Estudios de técnicas de litigación, K. Ventura and L. M., trans., Perú: Jurista Editores.Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice (2013). The Government’s Response to the Law Commission Report: Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, England: Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar
National Research Council (2009). Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward, Washington, DC: The National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Naughton, M. (2013). The Innocent and the Criminal Justice System. A Sociological Analysis of Miscarriages of Justice, United Kingdom: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Risinger, M. (2007). Innocent Convicted: An Empirically Justified Wrongful Conviction Rate. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 97(3), 761–806.Google Scholar
Roach, K. (2009). Forensic Science and Miscarriages of Justice: Some Lessons from a Comparative Perspective. Jurimetrics, 50, 67–92.Google Scholar
Roach, K. (2010). Wrongful Convictions: Adversarial and Inquisitorial Themes, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, 35 (2), 387–446.Google Scholar
Roberts, J. (2011). Why Misdemeanors Matter: Defining Effective Advocacy in Lower Criminal Courts. University of California Davis Law Review, 45, 277–372.Google Scholar
Roxin, C. (2003). Derecho Procesal Penal, 25th ed., G. Córdoba and D. Pastor, trans., Buenos Aires: Editores del Puerto.Google Scholar
Sacks, M. and Spellman, B. (2016). The Psychological Foundations of Evidence Law, New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. and Spellman, B. (2013). Is Expert Evidence Really Different? Notre Dame Law Review, 89, 1–26.Google Scholar
Simon, D. (2012). In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taruffo, M. (2008). La Prueba, L. Manríquez and J. Ferrer Beltrán (translators), Madrid: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar
The Law Commission (2009). The Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, Consultation Paper no. 190, London: The Law Commission.Google Scholar
The Law Commission (2011). Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales, Law Com. No. 325, London: Stationary Office.Google Scholar
Thomas, S. (2015). Addressing Wrongful Convictions: An Examination of Texas´s New Junk Science Writ and Other Measures for Protecting the Innocent, Houston Law Review, 52, 1037–68.Google Scholar
Wells, G., Greathouse, S. and Smalarz, L. (2012). Why Do Motions to Suppress Suggestive Eyewitness Identifications Fail? in Cutlered, B. ed., Conviction of the Innocent, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 167–84.Google Scholar