Frederick Adams, “Information Theory”, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd edition, ed. Audi, Robert, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999, 435--437.
Alexy, Robert, A Theory of Legal Argumentation, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1989.
Ronald, J. Allen and Leiter, Brian, “Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence”, Virginia Law Review, 87, 2001, 1491–1550.
Anderson, Barrie and Anderson, Dawn, Manufacturing Guilt: Wrongful Convictions in Canada, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Fernwood Publishing, 1998.
Anderson, Terence, Schum, David, and Twining, William, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Anderson, Terence and Twining, William, Analysis of Evidence: How to Do Things with Facts Based on Wigmore's Science of Judicial Proof, Boston, Little Brown, 1991.
Aqvist, Lennart, A New Approach to the Logical Theory of Interrogatives, Uppsala, Filosofiska Studier, 1965.
Armstrong, Ken and Possley, Maurice, “The Verdict: Dishonor”, Chicago Tribune, January 10, 1999, page 1 and page 12.
Lawyer, Army, “The Art of Trial Advocacy: An Approach to Cross-Examination”, Army Law, 80, 1998, 1–6.
Atkinson, Katie, What Should We Do? Computational Representation of Persuasive Argument in Practical Reasoning, Ph.D. thesis, Liverpool, University of Liverpool, 2005.
Katie Atkinson, Trevor Bench-Capon, and Peter McBurney, “A Dialogue Game Protocol for Multi-agent Argument over Proposals for Action”, Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems, ed. Rahwan, I., Moraitis, P., and Reed, C., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004, 149–61.
Atkinson, Katie, Bench-Capon, Trevor and McBurney, Peter, ‘Computational Representation of Practical Argument’, Synthese, 152, 2006, 157–206.
Audi, Robert, Practical Reasoning, London, Routledge, 1989.
Ayer, Alfred Jules, Language, Truth and Logic, London, Victor Gollancz, 1956.
Steven, C. Bank and Norman, G. Poythress Jr., “The Elements of Persuasion in Expert Testimony”, Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 10, 1982, 173–204.
John A. Barnden, “Simulative Reasoning, Common-Sense Psychology, and Artificial Intelligence”, Mental Simulation, ed. Davies, Martin and Stone, Tony, Oxford, Blackwell, 1995, 247–73.
Else, M. Barth and Erik, C.Krabbe, W., From Axiom to Dialogue, Berlin, De Gruyter, 1982.
Nuel, D. Belnap Jr., An Analysis of Questions: Preliminary Report, Santa Monica, CA, System Development Corporation, 1963.
Nuel D. Belnap, ‘Questions: Their Presuppositions, and How They Can Fail to Arise’, The Logical Way of Doing Things, ed. Lambert, Karel, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 1969, 23–37.
Trevor Bench-Capon, “Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law”, Legal Knowledge Based Systems: JURIX '95, The Eighth Annual Conference, ed. Jaap, C. Hage et al., Lelystad, Koninklijke Vermande, 1995, 5--14.
Bench-Capon, Trevor, “Persuasion in Practical Argument Using Value-Based Argumentation Frameworks”, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 2003, 429–48.
Trevor Bench-Capon and Henry Prakken, “Argumentation”, Information Technology and Lawyers: Advanced Technology in the Legal Domain, from Challenges to Daily Routine, ed. Arno, R. Lodder and Oskamp, Anja, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2005, 1–22.
Bex, Floris and Prakken, Henry, “Reinterpreting Arguments in Dialogue: An Application to Evidential Reasoning”, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2004, The Seventeeth Annual Conference, ed. Thomas F. Gordon, Amsterdam, IOS Press, 2004, 119–29.
Bex, Floris, Prakken, Henry, Reed, Chris, and Walton, Douglas, “Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence, Argument Schemes and Generalizations”, Artificial Intelligence & Law, 11, 2003, 125–65.
Anthony, J. Bocchino and David, A. Sonenshein, A Practical Guide to Federal Evidence, St. Paul, MN, National Institute for Trial Advocacy, 1988.
Bodin, Harry Sabbath, Principles of Cross-Examination, Practising Law Institute, 1967.
Michael, E. Bratman, Intentions, Plans, and Practical Reason, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1987.
Michael C. Bromby and Maria Jean J. Hall, “The Development and Rapid Evaluation of the Knowledge Model of ADVOKATE: An Advisory System to Assess the Credibility of Eyewitness Testimony”, Legal Knowledge and Information Systems: JURIX 2002, The Fifteenth Annual Conference, ed. Bench-Capon, T. J. M., Daskalopulu, A., and Winkels, R. G. F., Amsterdam, IOS Press, 2002, 143–52.
Buckwalter, Art, Interviews and Interrogations, Boston, Butterworth, 1983.
Burke, Michael, “Unstated Premises”, Informal Logic, 7, 1985, 107–18.
Craig, R. Callen, “Intelligent Procedures for Drawing Inferences in Static and Dynamic Legal Environments”, Cardozo Law Review, 22, 2001, 1791–1809.
Craig R. Callen, “Rationality and Relevancy: Conditional Relevancy and Constrained Resources”, presented at the Conference on Rationality in Evidence Law, Detroit College School of Law, Michigan State University, 2003.
Carlson, Lauri, Dialogue Games: An Approach to Discourse Analysis, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1983.
Christiano Castelfranchi and Rino Falcone, “Social Trust: A Cognitive Appraoch”, Trust and Deception in Virtual Societies, ed. Castelfranchi, Christiano and Tan, Y. H., Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2000, 55–90.
Cawsey, Alison, Explanation and Interaction: The Computer Generation of Explanatory Dialogue, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1992.
David, S. Clarke Jr., Practical Inferences, London, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1985.
Cody, C. A. J., Testimony: A Philosophical Study, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992.
Cohen, David, The Crucial 10% That Really Counts for Trial Victories, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Executive Reports Corporation, 1973.
Robin, G. Collingwood, The Idea of History, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1946.
Irving, M. Copi, Introduction to Logic, 7th ed., New York, Macmillan, 1986.
Irving, M. Copi and Cohen, Carl, Introduction to Logic, 10th ed., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998.
Crump, David, “On the Uses of Irrelevant Evidence”, Houston Law Review, 34, 1997, 1–45.
Mirjan, R. Damaska, Evidence Law Adrift, New Haven, CT, Yale University Press, 1997.
Leonard, E. Davies, Anatomy of Cross-Examination, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1993.
James, T. Dillon, The Practice of Questioning, London, Routledge, 1990.
Disclosure, “Inside the Interrogation Room”, CBC news program, January 28, 2003. Available at www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/030128_confess/main
Doutre, Sylvie, McBurney, Peter, Wooldridge, Michael, and Barden, William, Information-Seeking Agent Dialogs with Permissions and Arguments, Technical Report, Department of Computer Science, University of Liverpool, 2005. Available in pdf format at http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/research/techreports/
Dray, William, Philosophy of History, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1964.
Dray, William, History as Re-enactment: R. G. Collingwood's Idea of History, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995.
Paul Drew, “Strategies in the Contest between Lawyer and Witness in Cross-Examination”, Language in the Judicial Process, ed. Judith, N. Levi and Anne, G. Walker, New York, Plenum, 1990, 39–64.
Paul, E. Dunne, Doutre, Sylvie, and Bench-Capon, Trevor, “Discovering Inconsistency through Examination Dialogues”, Proceedings IJCAI-05 (International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence), Edinburgh, 2005, 1560–61. Available at http://ijcai.org/search.php
Robert, H. Ennis, “Identifying Implicit Assumptions”, Synthese, 51, 1982, 61–86.
Evans, J. D. G., Aristotle's Concept of Dialectic, London, Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Arthur, M. Farley and Freeman, Kathleen, “A Model of Argumentation and Its Application to Legal Reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 1996, 163–97.
Faulkner, P., “On the Rationality of Our Response to Testimony”, Synthese, 131, 2002, 353–70.
Federal Rules of Evidence, Committee of the Judiciary: House of Representatives, 2006, available at http://judiciary.house.gov/media/pdfs/printers/109th/31310.pdf
Felscher, Walter, “Dialogues, Strategies, and Intuitionistic Provability”, Annals of Pure and Applied Logic, 28, 1985, 217–54.
Feteris, Eveline, Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation, Dordrecht, Foris, 1999.
Fine, Ralph Adam, “Irving Younger Was Wrong When He Commanded ‘Use Only Leading Questions’”, The Wisconsin Lawyer, 6, 1994, 25–6.
Frank, Jerome, Courts on Trial, New York, Atheneum, 1963.
Stan Franklin and Art Graesser, “Is It an Agent, or Just a Program? A Taxonomy for Autonomous Agents”, Intelligent Agents III: Agent Theories, Architectures and Languages, ed. Jorg, P. Muller, Michael, J. Wooldridge, and Nicholas, R. Jennings, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 1996, 21–35.
James, B. Freeman, Dialectics and the Macrostructure of Arguments, Berlin, Foris, 1991.
Friedman, Richard, “Minimizing the Jury Over-Valuation Concern”, presented at the Symposium on Rationality in Evidence Law, Michigan State University, 2003.
Gee, D. J. and Mason, J. K., The Courts and the Doctor, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1990.
Thomas, F. Gordon, “Computational Dialectics”, Workshop Kooperative Juristische Informationssysteme, GMD Studien, Sankt Augustin, Germany, 1994, 25–36.
Thomas, F. Gordon, The Pleadings Game: An Artificial Intelligence Model of Procedural Justice, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1995.
Thomas F. Gordon, “Computational Dialectics”, Computers as Assistants – A New Generation of Support Systems, ed. Hoschka, P., Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996, 186–203.
Thomas F. Gordon, “A Computational Model of Argument for Legal Reasoning Support Systems”, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, ed. Paul, E. Dunne and Bench-Capon, Trevor, IAAIL Workshop Series, Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers, 2005, 53–64.
Thomas F. Gordon, Henry Prakken and Douglas Walton, ‘The Carneades Model of Argument and Burden of Proof, Artificial Intelligence, 171, 875–96, 2007.
Gough, James and Tindale, Christopher, “Hidden or Missing Premises”, Informal Logic, 7, 1985, 99–106.
Michael, H. Graham, “Impeaching the Professional Expert Witness by a Showing of Financial Interest”, Indiana Law Journal, 53, 1977, 35–53.
J. Paul Grice, “Logic and Conversation”, The Logic of Grammar, ed. Davidson, Donald and Harman, Gilbert, Encino, CA, 1975, 64–75.
Guthrie, W. K. C., A History of Greek Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1981.
Haack, Susan, Defending Science within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism, Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books, 2003.
Jaap, C. Hage, Reasoning with Rules: An Essay on Legal Reasoning and Its Underlying Logic, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1997.
Jaap, C. Hage, Leenes, Ronald, and Arno, R. Lodder, “Hard Cases: A Procedural Approach”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2, 1994, 113–67.
Charles, L. Hamblin, Fallacies, London, Methuen, 1970.
Charles, L. Hamblin, “Mathematical Models of Dialogue,” Theoria, 37, 1971, 130–55.
David Harrah, “The Logic of Questions,” Handbook of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2, ed. Gabbay, Dov and Guenther, F., Dordrecht, Reidel, 1984, 715–64.
Hastie, Reid, Steven, D. Penrod, and Pennington, Nancy, Inside the Jury, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1983.
George H. Hathaway, ‘MRE 611: Eight Classic Objections as to Form’, Michigan Bar Journal, 71, 1992, 688.
Marc, D. Hauser, The Evolution of Communication, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1996.
Herman, Russ, “Going by the Book: Direct and Cross-Examination of Medical Experts”, Trial, 27, 1991, 52–61.
Hintikka, Jaakko, “Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model,” Erkenntnis, 38, 1979, 355–68.
Hintikka, Jaakko, “The Interrogative Model of Inquiry as a General Theory of Argumentation”, Communication and Cognition, 25, 1992, 221–42.
Hintikka, Jaakko, “Socratic Questioning, Logic and Rhetoric”, Revue Internationale de Philosophie, 1 (No. 184), 1993, 5–30.
Hintikka, Jaakko, “The Games of Logic and the Games of Inquiry”, Dialectica, 49, 1995, 229–49.
Jaakko Hintikka and Merrill B. Hintikka, “Sherlock Holmes Confronts Modern Logic: Toward a Theory of Information-Seeking Through Questioning”, Argumentation: Approaches to Theory Formation, ed. Barth, E. M. and Martens, J. L., Amsterdam, Benjamins, 1982, 55–76.
Hitchcock, David, “Enthymematic Arguments”, Informal Logic, 7, 1985, 83–97.
Hitchcock, David, “Pollock on Practical Reasoning”, Informal Logic, 22, 2002, 247–56.
Hitchcock, David, McBurney, Peter, and Parsons, Simon, “A Framework for Deliberation Dialogues”, Argument and Its Applications: Proceedings of the Fourth Biennial Conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA 2001), ed. Hansen, H. V., Tindale, C. W., Blair, J. A., and Johnson, R. H., compact disk. Also available at http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~peter/
John Horty, ‘Nonmonotonic Logic’, The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, ed. Goble, L., Oxford, Blackwell, 2001, 336–61.
Huber, Peter, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom, New York, Basic Books, 1991.
Fred, E. Inbau and John, E. Reid, Criminal Interrogation and Confessions, 2nd ed., Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1967.
Innocence Project, 2001, Web page: http://www.innocenceproject.org/
John, R. Josephson and Susan, G. Josephson, Abductive Inference: Computation, Philosophy, Technology, New York, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
Kaiser, Artur, Questioning Techniques, Pomona, CA, Hunter House, 1979.
Erik, C. W. Krabbe, “So What? Profiles for Relevance Criticism in Persuasion Dialogues,” Argumentation, 6, 1992, 271–83.
Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Profiles of Dialogue”, JFAK: Essays Dedicated to Johan van Benthem on the Occasion of His 50th Birthday, ed. Gerbrandy, Jelle, Marx, Maarten, Rijke, Maarten, and Venema, Yde, Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 1999, 25–36.
Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Metadialogues”, Anyone Who Has a View: Theoretical Contributions to the Study of Argumentation, ed. Frans, H. van Eemeren, Blair, J. Anthony, Charles, A. Willard, and Henkemans, A. Francisca Snoek, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2003, 83–90.
Saul Kripke, “Semantical Analysis of Intuitionistic Logic I”, Formal Systems and Recursive Functions, ed. Crossley, J. N. and Dummett, M., Amsterdam, North-Holland, 1965, 92–113.
Lane, Jane, Titus Oates, Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1971.
Robert, P. Lawry, “A Nation under Lost Lawyers: The Legal Profession at the Close of the Twentieth Century”, Dickinson Law Review, 100, 1996, 563–86.
Earl, J. Levy, Examination of Witnesses in Criminal Cases, 4th ed., Scarborough, Ontario, Carswell, 1999.
Arno, R. Lodder, Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialog Games, Ph.D. thesis, University of Maastricht, 1998.
Arno, R. Lodder, Dialaw: On Legal Justification and Dialogical Models of Argumentation, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1999.
Loftus, Elizabeth, Eyewitness Testimony, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1979.
Lubet, Steven, Modern Trial Advocacy: Analysis and Practice, Notre Dame, IN, National Institute of Trial Advocacy, 1997.
MacCrimmon, Marilyn, “What Is Common about Common Sense?”, Cardozo Law Review, 22, 2001, 1433–60.
Mackenzie, Jim, “The Dialectics of Logic,” Logique et Analyse, 94, 1981, 159–77.
Mackenzie, Jim, “Begging the Question in Dialogue,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 62, 1984, 175–81.
Mackenzie, Jim, “Four Dialogue Systems,” Studia Logica, 49, 1990, 567–83.
McBurney, Peter and Parsons, Simon [2002]: Dialogue Games in Multi-Agent Systems. Informal Logic. Special Issue on Applications of Argumentation in Computer Science. 22 (3): 257–74.
McCannell, Munro, “Corroboration in Criminal Cases”, Scots Law Times, 34, 1996, 347–53.
James, W. McElhaney, “Leading Questions”, ABA Journal, 75, 1989, 104–7.
Geoffrey, P. Miller, “Pragmatics and the Maxims of Interpretation”, Wisconsin Law Review, 20, 1990, 1179–1227.
David, W. Moore, The Super Pollsters, New York, Four Walls Eight Windows, 1992.
Johanna, D. Moore, Participating in Explanatory Dialogues, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1995.
Moreno, Joelle Anne, “Beyond the Polemic against Junk Science: Navigating the Oceans That Divide Science and Law with Justice Breyer at the Helm”, Boston University Law Review, 81, 2001, 1033–91.
Gabriel Nuchelmans, “On the Fourfold Root of the Argumentum ad Hominem”, Empirical Logic and Public Debate, ed. Erik, C. W. Krabbe, Dalitz, Renee Jose, and Pier, A. Smit, Amsterdam, Rodopi, 1993, 37–47.
Ogle, Richard, Parkman, Allen, and Porter, James, “Questions: Leading and Otherwise”, Judges Journal, 19, 1980, 42–5.
Owen, David, None of the Above, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1985.
Palmer, Andrew, Proof and the Preparation of Trials, Sydney, Lawbook Co., 2003.
Roger C. Park, “Adversarial Influences on the Interrogation of Trial Witnesses”, Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice, ed. Peter, J. van Koppen and Steven, D. Penrod, New York, Kluwer, 2003, 131–66.
Roger, C. Park, David, P. Leonard, and Steven, H. Goldberg, Evidence Law, St. Paul, MN, West Group, 1998.
Pennington, Nancy and Hastie, Reid, “A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making”, Cardozo Law Review, 13, 1991, 519–57.
Nancy Pennington and Reid Hastie, “The Story Model for Juror Decision Making”, Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making, ed. Hastie, Reid, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1993, 192–221.
Perelman, Chaim, The Idea of Justice and the Problem of Argument, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963.
Perelman, Chaim and Olbrechts-Tyteca, Lucie, The New Rhetoric, Notre Dame, IN, Notre Dame University Press, 1969.
Robert, C.Pinto, J.Blair, Anthony, and Katharine, E. Parr, Reasoning: A Practical Guide for Canadian Students, Scarborough, Ontario, Prentice Hall Canada, 1993.
William, T. Pizzi, Trials without Truth: Why Our System of Criminal Trials Has Become an Expensive Failure and What Needs to Be Done to Rebuild It, New York, New York University Press, 1999.
John, L. Pollock, Cognitive Carpentry: A Blueprint for How to Build a Person, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 1995.
Prakken, Henry, “On Formalizing Burden of Proof in Legal Argument”, Legal Knowledge-Based Systems: JURIX 99, The Twelfth Conference, Nijmegen, Gerard Noodt Instituut, 1991, 85–97.
Prakken, Henry, Logical Tools for Modelling Legal Argument, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1997.
Prakken, Henry, “Modelling Reasoning about Evidence in Legal Procedure”, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, St. Louis, 2001, New York, ACM Press, 2001a, 119–28.
Prakken, Henry, “Relating Protocols for Dynamic Dispute with Logics for Defeasible Argumentation”, Synthese, 127, 2001b, 187–219.
Prakken, Henry, Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?Fundamenta Informaticae 48, 253–71 (2001c).
Henry Prakken, ‘Logical Dialectics: The Missing Link Between Deductivism and Pragma-Dialectics’, Proceedings of the Fifth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. Frans, H. van Eemeren at al., Amsterdam, SicSat, 2003, 857–60.
Prakken, Henry, “Formal Systems for Persuasion Dialogue”, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 20, 2005, 1–26.
Prakken, Henry, Reed, Chris, and Walton, Douglas, “Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations in Reasoning about Evidence”, ICAIL Conference Proceedings, University of Edinburgh, 2003, 32--41.
Prakken, Henry, Chris Reed, and Douglas Walton, ‘Dialogues about the Burden of Proof’, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Held June 6–11, 2005 in Bologna, Italy, New York, The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2005, 115–124.
Prakken, Henry and Sartor, Giovanni, “A Dialectical Model of Assessing Conflicting Arguments in Legal Reasoning”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 4, 1996, 331–68.
Prakken, Henry and Sartor, Giovanni, “Modelling Reasoning with Precedents in a Formal Dialogue Game”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 6, 1998, 231–87.
Henry Prakken and Giovanni Sartor, The Role of Logic in Computational Models of Legal Argument: a Critical Survey. In Kakas, A. and Sadri, F. (eds.), Computational Logic: Logic Programming and Beyond. Essays In Honour of Robert A. Kowalski, Part II. Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2048, Berlin 2002, 342–80.
Iyad Rahwan, Pavlos Moraitis, and Chris Reed, “Preface”, Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: First International Workshop, ArgMAS 2004, Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. Rahwan, Iyad, Moraitis, Pavlos, and Reed, Chris, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2005, I–VIII.
Sarvapalid, D.Ramchurn, Dong Huyn, and Nicholas, R. Jennings, “Trust in Multi-agent Systems”, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 19, 2004, 1–25.
Redmayne, Mike, “A Corroboration Approach to Recovered Memories”, Law Quarterly Review, 116, 2000, 147–55.
Redmayne, Mike, Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001.
Redmayne, Mike, “The Relevance of Bad Character”, Cambridge Law Journal, 61, 2002, 684–714.
Reed, Chris, Timothy, J. Norman, and Nicholas, R. Jennings, “Negotiating the Semantics of Agent Communication Languages”, Computational Intelligence, 18, 2002, 229--252.
Reed, Chris and Timothy, J. Norman, eds., Argumentation Machines, Dordrecht, Kluwer, 2004.
Reed, Chris and Rowe, Glenn, Araucaria: Software for Puzzles in Argument Diagramming and XML, Technical Report, Department of Applied Computing, University of Dundee, 2002.
Chris Reed and Douglas Walton, “Towards a Formal and Implemented Model of Argumentation Schemes in Agent Communication”, Argumentation in Multi-agent Systems: First International Workshop, ArgMAS 2004, Revised Selected and Invited Papers, ed. Rahwan, Iyad, Moraitis, Pavlos, and Reed, Chris, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2005, 19–30.
Chris Reed and Douglas Walton, “Evaluating Corroborative Evidence”, Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the International Society for the Study of Argumentation, ed. Frans, H. van Eemeren, Blair, J. Anthony, Charles, A. Willard, and Henkemans, Francisca Snoek, Amsterdam, SicSat, 2006, 881--5.
Thomas Reid, “An Inquiry into the Mind on the Principles of Common Sense”, The Works of Thomas Reid, ed. Bart, W. H., Edinburgh, Machlachlan and Stewart, 1764.
Rescher, Nicholas, Dialectics, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1977.
Robinson, Richard, Plato's Earlier Dialectic, 2nd ed., Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1953.
Robert, F. Royal and Steven, R. Schutt, The Gentle Art of Interviewing and Interrogation, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall, 1976.
Sanchirico, Chris William, “Character Evidence and the Object of Trial”, Columbia Law Review, 101, 2001, 1227–1311.
Sandler, Paul Mark and James, K. Archibald, Model Witness Examinations, Chicago, American Bar Association, 1997.
Kevin, W. Saunders, “Informal Fallacies in Legal Argumentation”, South Carolina Law Review, 44, 1993, 343–82.
Schank, R. and Abelson, R., Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1977.
David, A. Schum, Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning, New York, Wiley, 1994.
David A. Schum and Jon R. Morris, “Assessing the Competence and Credibility of Human Sources of Intelligence Information: Contributions from Law”, slide presentation at Cardozo School of Law, January 20, 2007.
Schuman, Howard and Presser, Stanley, Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question Form, Wording and Context, New York, Academic Press, 1981.
Louis, E. Schwartz, Proof, Persuasion and Cross-Examination, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Executive Reports Corporation, 1973.
Searle, John, Rationality in Action, Cambridge, MA, The MIT Press, 2001.
Claude, E. Shannon and Weaver, Warren, The Mathematical Theory of Communication, Urbana, IL, University of Illinois Press, 1972.
Barry, G. Silverman, Critiquing Human Error: A Knowledge Based Human-Computer Collaboration Approach, London, Academic Press, 1992.
Munindar, P. Singh, “Agent Communication Languages: Rethinking the Principles”, Computer, 31, 1998, 425–45.
Stone, Marcus, Cross-Examination in Legal Trials, 2nd ed., London, Butterworths, 1995.
Strier, Franklin, “Making the Jury Trial More Truthful”, University of California Davis Law Review, 30, 1996, 95–182.
John, W. Strong, McCormick on Evidence, 4th ed., St. Paul, MN, West Publishing Co., 1992.
Taylor, Lawrence, Scientific Interrogation, Charlottesville, VA, The Michie Company, 1984.
Peter Tillers, “Making Sense of the Process of Proof in Litigation”, The Dynamics of Judicial Proof, ed. MacCrimmon, Marylin and Tillers, Peter, Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag, 2002, 3–17.
Toulmin, Stephen, The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1958.
Twining, William, Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985.
Twining, William, “Narrative and Generalizations in Argumentation about Questions of Fact”, South Texas Law Review, 40, 1999, 351–452.
Twining, William, Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd ed., Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Underwood, R. H. and Fortune, W. H., Trial Ethics, Boston, Little Brown, 1988.
Frans, H. van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Rob, Speech Acts in Communicative Discussions, Dordrecht, Foris, 1984.
Frans, H. van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Rob, “Fallacies in Pragma-Dialectical Perspective”, Argumentation, 1, 1987, 283–301.
Frans, H. van Eemeren and Grootendorst, Rob, Argumentation, Communication and Fallacies, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, 1992.
Kessel, Gordon, “Adversary Excesses in the American Criminal Trial”, Notre Dame Law Review, 67, 1992, 1–112.
Peter J. van Koppen and Steven D. Penrod, “Adversarial or Inquisitorial: Comparing Systems”, Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice, ed. Peter, J. van Koppen and Steven, D. Penrod, New York, Kluwer, 2003a, 1–19.
Peter J. van Koppen and Steven D. Penrod, “The John Wayne and Judge Dee Versions of Justice”, Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Justice, ed. Peter, J. van Koppen and Steven, D. Penrod, New York, Kluwer, 2003b, 347–67.
Verheij, Bart, Rules, Reasons, Arguments: Formal Studies of Argumentation and Defeat, doctoral dissertation, University of Maastricht, 1996.
Bart Verheij, “Dialectical Argumentation as a Heuristic for Courtroom Decision Making”, 2000, available at http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm
Verheij, Bart, “Legal Decision Making as Dialectical Theory Construction with Argumentation Schemes”, The 8th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the Conference, New York, Association for Computing Machinery, 2001, 225–36. Available at http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.
Verheij, Bart, “Dialectical Argumentation with Argumentation Schemes: An Approach to Legal Logic”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 11, 2003b, 167–95.
Verheij, Bart, ‘DefLog: on the Logical Interpretation of Prima Facie Justified Assumptions’, Journal of Logic and Computation, 13, 2003a, 319–346. Available at http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm.
Verheij, Bart, Virtual Arguments: On the Design of Argument Assistants for Lawyers and Other Arguers, The Hague, Asser Press, 2005.
Georg, H. von Wright, “On So-Called Practical Inference”, Acta Sociologica, 15, 1972, 39–53.
Willem, A. Wagenaar, Peter, J. van Koppen, and Hans, F. M. Crombag, Anchored Narratives: The Psychology of Criminal Evidence, Hertfordshire, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993.
Walton, Douglas, Logical Dialogue – Games and Fallacies, Lanham, MD, University Press of America, 1984.
Walton, Douglas, Question–Reply Argumentation, New York, Greenwood Press, 1989.
Walton, Douglas, Practical Reasoning, Savage, MD, Rowman and Littlefield, 1990.
Walton, Douglas, A Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy, Tuscaloosa, AL, University of Alabama Press, 1995.
Walton, Douglas, Argumentation Schemes for Presumptive Reasoning, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 1996.
Walton, Douglas, Appeal to Expert Opinion, University Park, PA, Penn State Press, 1997.
Walton, Douglas, The New Dialectic: Conversational Contexts of Argument, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1998.
Walton, Douglas, Legal Argumentation and Evidence, University Park, PA, Penn State Press, 2002.
Walton, Douglas, “The Interrogation as a Type of Dialogue”, Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 2003, 1771–1802.
Walton, Douglas, Relevance in Argumentation, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum, 2004.
Walton, Douglas, Argumentation Methods for Artificial Intelligence in Law, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2005.
Walton, Douglas, “Argument from Appearance: A New Argumentation Scheme”, Logique et Analyse, 195, 2006a, 319–40.
Walton, Douglas, “Examination Dialogue: An Argumentation Framework for Critically Questioning an Expert Opinion”, Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 2006b, 745–77.
Douglas Walton and Thomas F. Gordon, “Critical Questions in Computational Models of Legal Argument”, Argumentation in Artificial Intelligence and Law, IAAIL Workshop Series, ed. Paul, E. Dunne and Bench-Capon, Trevor, Nijmegen, Wolf Legal Publishers, 2005, 103–11.
Douglas, N. Walton and Erik, C. W. Krabbe, Commitment in Dialogue, Albany, NY, 1995.
Walton, Douglas and Macagno, Fabrizio, “Common Knowledge in Legal Reasoning about Evidence”, International Commentaries on Evidence, 3, 2005, 1–42.
Francis, L. Wellman, The Art of Cross-Examination, New York, Macmillan, 1936.
Whately, Richard, Elements of Rhetoric, London, Parker, Son and Bourn, 1863.
John, H. Wigmore, The Principles of Judicial Proof, Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1913 (second edition, 1931).
John, H. Wigmore, A Student's Textbook of the Law of Evidence, Chicago, The Foundation Press, 1935.
John, H. Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence, Vol. 1 (of 10 volumes), 3rd ed., Boston, Little, Brown and Company, 1940.
Wilson, W. A., “The Logic of Corroboration”, Scottish Law Review, 76, 1960, 101–8.
Woods, John and Walton, Douglas, “Arresting Circles in Formal Dialogues”, Journal of Philosophical Logic, 7, 1978, 73–90.
Woods, John and Walton, Douglas, “Question-Begging and Cumulativeness in Dialectical Games,” Nous, 16, 1982, 585–605.
Wooldridge, Michael, Reasoning about Rational Agents, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2000.
Wooldridge, Michael, An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems, Chichester, Wiley, 2002.
Wooldridge, Michael and Nicholas, R. Jennings, “Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice”, The Knowledge Engineering Review, 10, 1995, 115–52.
Wooldridge, Michael, McBurney, Peter, and Parsons, Simon, “On the Meta-Logic of Arguments”, Proceedings of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multi-agent Systems, eds., F. Dignum, V. Dignum, S. Koenig, S. Kraus, M. P. Singh, and M. Wooldridge, Utrecht, ACM Press, 2005, 560--7.
Yu, Bin and Munindar, P. Singh, “A Social Mechanism of Reputation Management in Electronic Communities”, Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Cooperative Information Agents, Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 2000, 154--165. Available at www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/mpsingh/papers
Yu, Bin and Munindar, Paul Singh, “Distributed Reputation Management for Electronic Commerce”, Computational Intelligence, 18, 2002, 535–49.
Further ReadingsAarnio, A., The Rational as Reasonable: A Treatise of Legal Justification, Dordrecht, Reidel, 1987.
Alphandery, P. D., “The Inquisition”, Encyclopaedia Britannica, 12, 1963, 377–83.
Anaximemes, Rhetorica ad Alexandrum, trans. E. S. Forster, in Vol. XI of The Works of Aristotle Translated into English, ed. Ross, W. D., Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1946.
Andersen, Martin Edwin, “Terrorist Interrogations”, Insight on the News, June 17, 2002, 21–4, available on Lexis–Nexis (Academic Universe).
Aristotle, , On Sophistical Refutations, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1928.
Aristotle, , Topics, trans. E. S. Forster, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1939.
Nuel D. Belnap, Jr., “Questions: Their Presuppositions, and How They Can Fail to Arise,” The Logical Way of Doing Things, ed. Lambert, Karel, New Haven, CT and London, Yale University Press, 1969.
Jeremy Bentham, Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Vol. 7 of The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. Bowring, John, New York, Russell and Russell, 1962.
Boyer, Paul and Nissenbaum, Stephen, The Salem Witchcraft Papers, Vol. 1, New York, Da Capo, 1977.
CBS News Transcripts, 60 Minutes, September 22, 2002, Burrelle's Information Services, available on Lexis–Nexis (Academic Universe).
Eisele, Carolyn, Historical Perspectives on Peirce's Logic of Science, Vol. 1, Berlin, Mouton, 1985.
Empiricus, Sextus, Against the Logicians (AL), trans. R. G. Bury, Loeb Classical Library, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1933.
Federal Rules of Evidence, “Federal Rulemaking – Rules in Effect,” 2002. The latest versions of the federal rules of evidence as well as other rules can be found at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules/newrules4.html
Marvin, E. Frankel, Partisan Justice, New York, Hill and Wang, 1980.
James B. Freeman, “The Appeal to Popularity and Presumption by Common Knowledge”, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Hans, V. Hansen and Robert, C. Pinto, University Park, PA, Penn State Press, 1995, 263–73.
Michael Gagarin, “Probability and Persuasion: Plato and Early Greek Rhetoric”, Persuasion: Greek Rhetoric in Action, ed. Worthington, Ian, London, Routledge, 1994, 46–68.
Govier, Trudy, A Practical Study of Argument, 3rd ed., Belmont, Wadsworth, 1992.
Charles, L. Hamblin, Imperatives, New York, Blackwell, 1987.
Hample, Dale, “A Pragma-Dialectical Analysis of the Inquisition”, Argumentation, 15, 2001, 135–49.
Harman, Gilbert, “The Inference to the Best Explanation”, Philosophical Review, 74, 1965, 88–95.
George, H. Hathaway, “MRE 611: Eight Classic Objections as to Form, or Have You Stopped Beating Your Spouse?”, Michigan Bar Journal, 71, 1992, 688.
Jaakko Hintikka, “The Logic of Information-Seeking Dialogues: A Model”, Konzepte der Dialektike, ed. Becker, Werner and Wilhelm, K. Essler, Frankfurt, Vittorio Klostermann, 1981, 212–31.
John Horty, ‘Nonmonotonic Logic’, The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, ed. L. Goble, Oxford, Blackwell, 2001, 336–361.
Patrick, J. Hurley, A Concise Introduction to Logic, 3rd ed., Belmont, Wadsworth, 1988.
Edward, J. Imwinkelried, “A Comparativist Critique of the Interface between Hearsay and Expert Opinion in American Evidence Law”, Boston College Law Review, 33, 1991, 1–36.
Albert, R. Jonsen and Toulmin, Stephen, The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press, 1988.
Saul, M. Kassin, Lorri, N. Williams, and Courtney, L. Saunders, “Dirty Tricks of Cross-Examination”, Law and Human Behavior, 14, 1990, 373–84.
Jeffrey, L Kestler, Questioning Techniques and Tactics, New York, McGraw–Hill, 1982.
Erik, C. W. Krabbe, Studies in Dialogical Logic, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Groningen, 1982.
Erik C. W. Krabbe, “Appeal to Ignorance”, Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, ed. Hans, V. Hansen and Robert, C. Pinto, University Park, PA, Penn State Press, 1995, 251–64.
Richard, A. Leo and Richard, J. Ofshe, “The Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivations of Liberty and Miscarriages of Justice in the Age of Psychological Interrogation”, The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 88, 1998, 429–96.
Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, 9th ed., London, Churchill, 1726.
Mackenzie, Jim, “Question-Begging in Non-cumulative Systems,” Journal of Philosophical Logic, 8, 1979, 117–33.
Mackenzie, Jim, “Why Do We Number Theorems?”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 58, 1980, 135–49.
Magid, Laurie, “Deceptive Police Interrogation Practices: How Far Is Too Far?”, Michigan Law Review, 99, 2001, 1168–1210.
Montoya, Jean, “Something Not So Funny Happened on the Way to Conviction: The Pretrial Interrogation of Child Witnesses”, Arizona Law Review, 35, 1993, 927–87.
Nissan, Ephraim, “The Bayesianism Debate in Legal Scholarship”, Artificial Intelligence and Law, 9, 2001, 199–214.
Charles S. Peirce, Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 2, “Elements of Logic”, ed. Hartshorne, Charles and Weiss, Paul, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1965.
Prakken, Henry, “From Logic to Dialectics in Legal Argumentation”, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, Washington, DC, ACM Press, 1995, 165–74.
Prakken, Henry, “Modelling Defeasibility in Law: Logic or Procedure?” Fundamenta Informaticae, 20, 2001, 1–20.
Prakken, Henry, “Coherence and Flexibility in Dialogue Games for Argumentation”, Journal of Logic and Computation, 15, 2005, 1009–1040.
Roy, A. Redfield, Cross Examination and the Witness, Mundelein, IL, Callaghan and Company, 1963.
Redmayne, Mike, “Rationality, Naturalism and Evidence Law”, Michigan State Law Review, 4, 2003, 849–83.
Chris Reed and Douglas Walton, “Argumentation Schemes in Argument-as-Process and Argument-as-Product”, presented at IL@25, Informal Logic at 25, May, 2003.
Rescher, Nicholas, Plausible Reasoning, Assen, Van Gorcum, 1976.
Rescher, Nicholas, “Response”, Informal Logic, 14, 1992, 53–8.
Richard, H. Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy, New York, Harcourt Brace, 1959.
Kevin, W. Saunders, “The Mythic Difficulty in Proving a Negative”, Seton Hall Law Review, 15, 1985, 276–89.
Frans, H. van Eemeren (ed.), Advances in Pragma-Dialectics, Amsterdam, SicSat, 2002.
Bart Verheij, “Anchored Narratives and Dialectical Argumentation”, available at http://www.ai.rug.nl/~verheij/publications.htm
Walton, Douglas, “Rules for Plausible Reasoning”, Informal Logic, 14, 1992, 33–51.
Walton, Douglas, Argument Structure: A Pragmatic Theory, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1996.
Walton, Douglas, One-Sided Arguments: A Dialectical Analysis of Bias, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, 1999.
Walton, Douglas, Fundamentals of Critical Argumentation, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
Walton, Douglas and Reed, Chris, “Enthymemes and Argumentation Schemes”, Synthese: An International Journal for Epistemology, Methodology and Philosophy of Science, 145, 2005, 339–70.
James, W. Williams, “Interrogating Justice: A Critical Analysis of the Police Interrogation and Its Role in the Criminal Justice Process”, Canadian Journal of Criminology, 42, 2000, 209–41.
