Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Scientific evidence is commonplace in today's criminal trials. From hair and handwriting analysis to ink and DNA fingerprints, scientists have brought their world to bear on the justice system. Combining political analysis, scientific reasoning, and an in-depth study of specific state supreme court cases, Black Robes, White Coats is an interdisciplinary examination of the tradition of "gatekeeping," the practice of deciding the admissibility of novel scientific evidence. Rebecca Harris systematically examines judicial policymaking in three areas forensic DNA, polygraphs, and psychological syndrome evidence to answer the question: Why is scientific evidence treated differently among various jurisdictions? These decisions have important implications for evaluating our judicial system and its ability to accurately develop scientific policy. While the interaction of these professions occurs because the white coats often develop and ascertain knowledge deemed very useful to the black robes, Harris concludes that the black robes are well positioned to render appropriate rulings and determine the acceptability of harnessing a particular science for legal purposes. First book to systematically gather and analyze judicial decisions on scientific admissibility Analyzes several key cases including Arizona v. Bible and Kansas v. Marks Includes examples of evidence in three appendices: forensic DNA, polygraph evidence, and syndrome evidence Presents an original model of the gatekeeping process

Judicial discretion --- State courts --- Admissible evidence --- Evidence, Expert --- Courts --- Admissibility of evidence --- Evidence, Admissible --- Evidence (Law) --- Motions in limine --- Law and legislation

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Due to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty opened the possibility to adopt minimum rules concerning, among other things, the mutual admissibility of evidence, this research investigates the concept of minimum standards designed to enhance mutual admissibility of evidence in the EU. Through a study of two investigative measures, telephone tapping and house search, the author examines whether coming to various common minimum standards is feasible and whether compliance with these standards would finally shape the as yet nonexistent concept of the free movement and mutual recognition of evidence in criminal matters in the EU. Essential reading for both national and EU policy makers, scholars and practitioners involved in cross-border gathering of evidence in the EU.

Admissible evidence --- Wiretapping --- Searches and seizures --- Admissibilité de la preuve --- Écoute électronique --- Perquisitions et saisies --- Law and legislation --- Droit --- Seizures --- Criminal procedure --- Wire-tapping --- Eavesdropping --- Electronic security systems --- Admissibility of evidence --- Evidence, Admissible --- Evidence (Law) --- Motions in limine --- Admissibilité de la preuve --- Écoute électronique

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Criminal law. Criminal procedure --- Netherlands --- 343.14 --- Admissible evidence --- -Evidence, Criminal --- -343.14 <492> --- Criminal evidence --- Criminal investigation --- Criminal procedure --- Evidence (Law) --- Reasonable doubt --- Admissibility of evidence --- Evidence, Admissible --- Motions in limine --- Strafrechtelijk bewijs. Bewijsvoering in strafzaken. Ondervraging van verdachte. Bekentenis. Eed. Getuigenverklaring. Expertise --- Law and legislation --- 343.14 Strafrechtelijk bewijs. Bewijsvoering in strafzaken. Ondervraging van verdachte. Bekentenis. Eed. Getuigenverklaring. Expertise --- Evidence, Criminal --- 343.14 <492>

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Law of civil procedure --- 347.9 --- Gerechtelijk privaatrecht. Burgerlijk procesrecht. Burgerlijke rechtsvordering. --- Admissible evidence --- Law --- Procedure (Law) --- Burgerlijk procesrecht. --- Strafprocesrecht --- International unification --- Strafprocesrecht. --- 347.9 Gerechtelijk privaatrecht. Burgerlijk procesrecht. Burgerlijke rechtsvordering. --- Adjective law --- Legal procedure --- Practice (Legal procedure) --- Procedural law --- Acts, Legislative --- Enactments, Legislative --- Laws (Statutes) --- Legislative acts --- Legislative enactments --- Jurisprudence --- Legislation --- Admissibility of evidence --- Evidence, Admissible --- Evidence (Law) --- Motions in limine --- Gerechtelijk privaatrecht. Burgerlijk procesrecht. Burgerlijke rechtsvordering --- Practice --- Procedure --- Law and legislation --- Belgium --- Congresses --- Netherlands --- Témoignage recevable --- Europe

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Questions of admissibility surrounding expert evidence have always bedevilled the judiciary. However, statutory language and rules of procedure, conscientiously interpreted and applied to the use of expert evidence, can go a long way towards achieving rectitude of decision where judgement requires knowledge not necessarily possessed by the jurists responsible for trying the case. In this remarkable work of analysis and commentary, George Cumming takes the position that the prominent international courts of Europe fail to follow their own rules of procedure in the use of expert opinion, thus potentially breaching the express right to a fair trial embodied within Article 6 (1) ECHR.

Law of civil procedure --- European Court of Human Rights --- European Union --- Evidence, Expert --- Admissible evidence --- Judgments --- Fair trial --- Law --- UE/CE Droit. --- UE/CE Cour de justice. --- Cour europeenne des droits de l'homme. --- Cours supremes. --- Jugements. --- Temoignages. --- Expertises judiciaires. --- UE/CE Traites. --- Convention europeenne des droits de l'homme. --- Court decisions --- Court rulings --- Civil procedure --- Courts --- Criminal procedure --- Estoppel --- Judges --- Judicial process --- Jurisdiction --- Stare decisis --- Admissibility of evidence --- Evidence, Admissible --- Evidence (Law) --- Motions in limine --- Expert evidence --- Expert testimony --- Expert witness --- Expert witnesses --- Opinion evidence --- Scientific evidence (Law) --- Witnesses --- Acts, Legislative --- Enactments, Legislative --- Laws (Statutes) --- Legislative acts --- Legislative enactments --- Jurisprudence --- Legislation --- Right to a fair trial --- Trial, Fair --- Due process of law --- Interpretation and construction. --- Law and legislation --- Etats-Unis d'Amerique. --- Canada. --- Cour européenne des droits de l'homme. --- Cours suprêmes. --- Témoignages. --- UE/CE Traités. --- Convention européenne des droits de l'homme. --- Etats-Unis d'Amérique. --- UE/CE Droit --- UE/CE Cour de justice --- Cour europeenne des droits de l'homme --- Cours supremes --- Jugements --- Temoignages --- Expertises judiciaires --- UE/CE Traites --- Convention europeenne des droits de l'homme --- Interpretation and construction