The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence


The Judicial Assessment of Expert Evidence

Justice systems increasingly rely on expert evidence. We are therefore obliged to justify the courts' ability to assess this evidence, especially when the courts must resolve disagreements between experts or address possible bias. By reintegrating contemporary evidence theory with applied philosophy, Deirdre Dwyer analyses the epistemological basis for the judicial assessment of expert evidence. Reintegrating evidence with procedure, she also examines how we might arrange our legal processes in order to support our epistemological and non-epistemological expectations. Including analysis of the judicial assessment of expert evidence in civil litigation (comparing practice in England and Wales with that in the United States, France, Germany and Italy), the book also provides the first detailed account of the historical development of English civil expert evidence and the first analysis of the use of party experts, single joint experts and assessors under the Civil Procedure Rules.


 Reviews:

"A work in legal epistemology that focuses on civil litigation in England and Wales, with comparative discussion of France..."
--Chronicle of Higher Education


Reference Type: notes

E. Jeuland, ‘Expertise’, in L. Cadiet (ed.), Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), pp. 503–10, pp. 503–4
C. Champaud, ‘Société contemporaine et métamorphose de l'expertise judiciaire’, in Mélanges Henry Blaise (Paris: Economica, 1995), pp. 59–79
L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58, 54
M.-C. Meininger (ed.), ‘L’administrateur et l'expert’ (2002) 103 Revue Française d'Administration Publique, 365–527
G. Edmond (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004)
R. Porter, England in the Eighteenth Century, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990), p. 81
N. Luhmann, Differentiation of Society, trans. S. Holmes and C. Larmore (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996)
P. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (New York: Basic Books, 1991)
S. Dobbin, S. Gatowski, J. Richardson, G. Ginsburg, M. Merlino and V. Dahir, ‘Applying Daubert: How Well Do Judges Understand Science and Scientific Method?’ (2002) 85 Judicature 244–7
I. Freckleton, P. Reddy and H. Selby, Australian Judicial Perspectives on Expert Evidence: An Empirical Study (Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 1999)
W. Twining, ‘Some Scepticism About Some Scepticisms’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 99–164, pp. 114–16
A. Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 12
H. Ho, A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
J. Day and L. Le Gat, Expert Evidence under the CPR: A Compendium of Cases from April 1999 to April 2001 (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2001)
S. Burn, Successful Use of Expert Witnesses in Civil Disputes (Crayford: Shaw and Sons, 2005)
L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)
T. Hodgkinson and M. James, Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007)
W. Twining, ‘The Rationalist Tradition of Evidence Scholarship’, in Rethinking Evidence, pp. 35–98
S. Haack, Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)

Reference Type: notes

W. Twining, ‘The Rationalist Tradition of Evidence Scholarship,’ in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 35–98
R. Lempert, ‘The New Evidence Scholarship: Analyzing the Process of Proof’ (1986) 66 Boston University Law Review 439–77
J. Jackson, ‘Analysing the New Evidence Scholarship: Towards a New Conception of the Law of Evidence’ (1996) 16 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 309–28
P. Roberts, ‘Rethinking the Law of Evidence: A Twenty-First Century Agenda for Teaching and Research’, in P. Roberts and M. Redmayne, Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching (Oxford: Hart, 2007), pp. 19–63, p. 31
L. Laudan, Truth, Error and Criminal Law – An Essay in Legal Epistemology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. xi
H. Hart, ‘Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence’ (1954) 70 Law Quarterly Review 37–60
H. Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
J. Frank, Law and the Modern Mind (New York: Tudor, 1930)
W. Twining, Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973)
Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1977)
Justice in Robes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006)
W. Twining, ‘Taking Facts Seriously’, in Rethinking Evidence, pp. 14–34
W. Twining, ‘Evidence and Legal Theory’ (1984) 47 Modern Law Review 261–83
S. Haack, ‘Crossing My i's and Dotting Some t's: Response to Vern Walker’, in C. de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 105–8, p. 107
P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 132–46
G. Gilbert, The Law of Evidence (London: 1754)
W. Wills, An Essay on the Principles of Circumstantial Evidence (London: 1838)
W. Best, A Treatise on Presumptions of Law and Fact with the Theory and Rules of Presumptive or Circumstantial Proof in Criminal Cases (London: Sweet, 1844)
J. Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), ed. J. Yolton, 3rd edn (London: Dent, 1993)
J. Stephen, The Principles of Judicial Evidence, Being an Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872) (Calcutta: Thacker Spink & Co., 1872)
J. Wigmore, The Science of Judicial Proof: As Given by Logic, Psychology and General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 3rd edn (Boston: Little, Brown, 1937)
A. Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
S. Haack, Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)
S. Haack, Defending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism (New York: Prometheus Books, 2003), p. 309
M. Steup, ‘Epistemology’, in E. Zelta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition)
E. Gettier, ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ (1963) 23 Analysis 121–3
T. Williamson, Knowledge and its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005), p. 53
D. Dwyer, ‘Knowledge, Truth and Justification in Legal Fact Finding’ (2007) 1(4) Reasoner 5–6
H. Ho, ‘The Epistemic Basis of Legal Fact-finding’ (2007) 1(2) Reasoner 5–6
J. Clendinnen, ‘Ratifying Foundherentism’, in de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack, pp. 73–87
S. Haack, ‘The Benefit of Experience: Response to John Clendinnen’, in de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack, pp. 88–91
B. Spinoza, Ethics (1677), trans. A. Boyle, ed. G. Parkinson (London: Dent, 1993)
M. David, ‘The Correspondence Theory of Truth’, in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition)
L. BonJour, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 90
S. Haack, ‘Of Chopin and Sycamores: Response to Ryszard Wójcicki’, in de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack, pp. 69–72, p. 69
A. Einstein, ‘Physics and Reality’, in S. Bargmann (ed.), Ideas and Opinions of Albert Einstein (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), p. 295
V. Walker, ‘It's Time to Cross the t's and Dot the i's’, in de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack, pp. 92–104
J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1898)
W. Twining, ‘What is the Law of Evidence?’ in Twining, Rethinking Evidence, pp. 192–236
D. Walton, Legal Argumentation and Evidence (University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002)
‘Scientific Discovery and Logical Proof’, in C. Singer (ed.), Studies in the History and Method of Science, vol. I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1917), pp. 235–89
D. Schum, Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning (London: John Wiley, 1994)
D. Walton, ‘Rules for Reasoning from Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge’ (2006) 34 Philosophia 355–76
J. Cohen, The Probable and the Provable (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977)
N. Taleb, The Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable (London: Penguin, 2007)
W. Macpherson, The New Procedure of the Civil Courts of British India, 5th edn (London: Lepage & Co., 1871), p. 167
A. Coady, Testimony: a Philosophical Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)
C. Allen, The Law of Evidence in Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 18
T. Starkie, A Practical Treatise on the Law of Evidence and Digest of Proofs in Civil and Criminal Proceedings (London: Clarke, 1824), p. 18
T. Anderson, D. Schum and W. Twining, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 118
W. Twining, Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985)
W. Best, Principles of the Law of Evidence and Practice as to Proofs in Courts of Common Law (London: Sweet, 1849)
T. Gallanis, ‘The Rise of Modern Evidence Law’ (1999) 84 Iowa Law Review 499–560
J. Langbein, The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
G. Palazzolo, Prova legale e pena: la crisi del sistema tra evo medio e moderno (Naples: Jovene, 1979)
J. Langbein, Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977)
R. Helmholz, The Ius Commune in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 118ff
D. Menashe and M. Shamash, ‘The Narrative Fallacy’ (2005) 3 International Commentary on Evidence
X. Lagarde, ‘Vérité’, in L. Cadiet (ed.), Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), pp. 1324–39
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006), p. 7
J. Langbein, ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823–66
M. Frankel, ‘The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1031–1059
J. Frank, Courts on Trial (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950), pp. 80–102
N. Duxbury, ‘Jerome Frank and the Legacy of Legal Realism’ (1991) 18 Journal of Law and Society 175–205, 188–9
M. Damaška, ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289–308
S. Haack, ‘Innocent Realism in a Pluralistic Universe’, in de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack, pp. 233–6
S. Haack, Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)
S. Haack, ‘Law, Literature, and Bosh’, in de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack, pp. 259–62
D. Nelken, ‘The Truth about Law's Truth’, in A. Febbrajo and D. Nelken, European Yearbook in the Sociology of Law 1993 (Milan: Giuffrè, 1994), pp. 87–160
D. Dwyer, ‘Is a finding that a person deemed unfit to be tried “did the act… charged against him” compatible with Article 6 ECHR?’ (2003) 67 Journal of Criminal Law 307–10
M. Damaška, ‘Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1083–106
K. Nörr, ‘Procedure in Mercantile Matters: Some Comparative Aspects’, in V. Piergiovanni, The Courts and the Development of Commercial Law (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1987), p. 195
K. Grevling, ‘Restrictions on the Right to Silence – Introduction’, in H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005), pp. 1039–56
E. Sward, The Decline of the Civil Jury (Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2001), p. 13
B. Spencer, ‘Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts’ (2007) 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 305–29
D. Devine, J. Buddenbaum, S. Houp, D. Stolle and N. Studebaker, ‘Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries’ (2007) 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 273–303
L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58
‘Practice and Potential of the Advisory Jury’ (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 1363–81
K. Bertelsen, ‘From Specialized Courts to Specialized Juries: Calling For Professional Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1998) 3 Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy 1
A. Feigenbaum, ‘Special Juries: Deterring Spurious Medical Malpractice Litigation in State Courts’ (2003) 24 Cardozo Law Review 1361–420
J. Oldham, ‘The Origins of the Special Jury’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 137–221
J. Oldham, ‘The History of the Special (Struck) Jury in the United States’ (1998) 6 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 623–75
F. Strier, ‘The Educated Jury: A Proposal for Complex Litigation’ (1997) 47 DePaul Law Review 49–83
R. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001)
J. Spencer, ‘Inscrutable Verdicts, the Duty to Give Reasons and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2001) 1 Archbold News 5–8
E. Sunderland, ‘The Inefficiency of the American Jury’ (1915) 13 Michigan Law Review 302–16
J. Miner, ‘The Jury Problem’ (1946) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1–15
H. Erlanger, ‘Jury Research in America: its Past and Future’ (1970) 4 Law and Society Review 345–70
H. Zeisel and S. Diamond, ‘“Convincing Empirical Evidence” on the Six Member Jury’ (1974) 41 University of Chicago Law Review 281–95
‘The Case for Special Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 1155–76
A. Rubin, ‘Trial by Jury in Complex Civil Cases: Voice of Liberty or Verdict of Confusion?’ (1982) 462 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 87–103
R. Lempert, ‘Civil Juries and Complex Cases: Let's Not Rush to Judgment’ (1981) 80 Michigan Law Review 68–132
R. Hastie, D. Schkade and J. Payne, ‘A Study of Juror and Jury Judgments in Civil Cases: Deciding Liability for Punitive Damages’ (1998) 22 Law and Human Behaviour 287–314
B. Bornstein, ‘The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?’ (1999) 23 Law and Human Behaviour 75–91
J. Jackson and S. Doran, ‘Judge and Jury: Towards a New Division of Labour in Criminal Trials’ 60 Modern Law Review 759–78
M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997)
M. Damaška, The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1986)
E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937)
T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)
K. Graham, ‘“There’ll Always be an England”: the Instrumental Ideology of Evidence’ (1987) 85 Michigan Law Review, 1204–34
P. Tillers, ‘Prejudice, Politics and Proof’ (1988) 86 Michigan Law Review 768–75
W. Twining, ‘Hot Air in the Redwoods, A Sequel to the Wind in the Willows’ (1988) 86 Michigan Law Review 1523–47
J. Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, rev. edn Tiller (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983)
A. Cross, Evidence (London: Butterworth, 1958)
C. McCormick, Handbook on the Law of Evidence (St Paul MN: West, 1954)
A. Benn, The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1906), p. 1
T. Lennon and S. Dea, ‘Continental Rationalism,” in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2007 Edition)
D. Dwyer, ‘Closed Evidence, Reasonable Suspicion and Torture’ (2005) 9 Evidence and Proof 126–31
W. Twining and P. Twining, ‘Bentham on Torture’ (1973) 24 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 305–56
M. Damaška, ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure’ (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 506–89
G. Ubertis, Argomenti di procedura penale (Milan: Giuffrè, 2002), p. 5
R. Aigler and I. Yates, ‘The Triangle of Culture, Inference and Litigation System’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 137–50
M. Damaška, ‘Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 25–39
F. McAuley, ‘Canon Law and the End of the Ordeal’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 473–513
R. Rodes, ‘The Canon Law as a Legal System – Function, Obligation, and Sanction’ (1964) 9 Natural Law Forum 45–94
U. Eco, Il nome della rosa, 47th edn (Milan: Tascabili Bompiani, 2001), pp. 13 and 31
B. Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England 1550–1720 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000)
J. Menochius, Tractatus de praesumptionibus, conjecturis, signis et indiciis (Venice: 1590)
I. Hacking, The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975)
B. Shapiro, ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ and ‘Probable Cause’: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence (Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1991)
F. Bacon, Advancement of Learning (London: 1605)
D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1740) ed. P. Nidditch, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978)
D. Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), ed. P. Nidditch, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)
M. Cappelletti and J. Perillo, Civil Procedure in Italy (Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965), pp. 190–215
A. Pundik, ‘Statistical Evidence: An Investigation of its Nature and its Usage in the Criminal Context’ (2006) Social Science Research Network
B. Williams, ‘Ethics’, in A. Grayling (ed.), Philosophy: A Guide Through the Subject, 2nd edn, vol. I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 545–83
R. Burns, A Theory of the Trial (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)
R. Hastie, Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)
F. Bex, H. Prakken, C. Reed and D. Walton, ‘Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations’ (2003) 11 Artificial Intelligence and Law 125–65
G. Rowe and C. Reed, ‘Translating Wigmore Diagrams’, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006), pp. 171–82
C. Reed and G. Rowe, ‘Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation’ (2005) 19 Argumentation 267–86
S. Toulmin, The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958)
A. Palmer, Proof and the Preparation of Trials (Sydney: Lawbook, 2003)
W. Twining, ‘Argumentation, Stories and Generalizations: A Comment’ (2007) 6 Law Probability and Risk 169–85
F. Bex, S. van den Braak, H. van Oostendorp, H. Prakken, B. Verheij and G. Vreeswijk, ‘Sense-making software for crime investigation: how to combine stories and arguments?’ (2007) 6 Law Probability and Risk 145–68
D. Schum, ‘Evidence and Inference About Past Events: An Overview of Six Case Studies’, in W. Twining and I. Hampsher–Monk (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003), p. 29
W. Twining, ‘Narrative and Generalizations in Argumentation about Questions of Fact’ (1999) 40 South Texas Law Review 351–65
H. Hart and T. Honoré, Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985)
T. Anderson, ‘On Generalizations I: A Preliminary Exploration’ (1999) 40 South Texas Law Review 455–81, 458
G. Moore, ‘A Defence of Common Sense’, in J. Muirhead (ed.), Contemporary British Philosophy, 2nd series (London: Allen and Unwin, 1924), pp. 191–223
A. Holmes, ‘Moore's Appeal to Common Sense’ (1961) 58 Journal of Philosophy 197–207
R. Eggleston, Evidence, Proof and Probability (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978), p. 145
W. Twining, ‘The Ratio Decidendi of the Parable of the Prodigal Son’, in K. O'Donovan and G. Rubin (eds.), Human Rights and Legal History: Essays in Honour of Brian Simpson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 149
R. Feldman, ‘Naturalized Epistemology’, in E. Zalta(ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition)
E. Beecher-Monas, Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 27–32
B. Barnes, D. Bloor and J. Henry, Scientific Knowledge: a Sociological Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)
M. Bishop and J. Trout, Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)
R. Nisbett and L. Ross, Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980), p. 14
S. Plous, The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (New York: McGraw Hill, 1993)
S. Stich, ‘Could Man be an Irrational Animal?’ (1985) 64 Synthèse 115–35
M. Solomon, ‘Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning’ (1992) 59 Philosophy of Science 439–55
G. Gigerenzer, P. Todd and the ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
N. Harvey and C. Harries, ‘Effects of Judges’ Forecasting on their Later Combination of Forecasts for the Same Outcome’ (2004) 20 International Journal of Forecasting 391–409
J. Cooper, E. Bennett and H. Sukel, ‘Complex Scientific Testimony: How Do Jurors Make Decisions?’ (1996) 20 Law and Human Behaviour 379–94, 381

Reference Type: notes

L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58, 54
C. Tapper, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 82
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005)
P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
M. Taruffo, La prova dei fatti giuridici (Milan: Giuffrè, 1992), pp. 303–10
G. Anscombe, ‘On Brute Facts’ (1958) 18 Analysis 69–72
Law Reform Committee England and Wales, Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence, 17th Report, Cmnd 4489 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1970)
J. Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Chadbourn. (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981), vol. VII, p. 5
J. Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (London: Maxwell and Son, 1848), p. 940
E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England, vol. IV (London: 1644), p. 279
T. Williamson, Knowledge and its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
A. Coady, Testimony: a Philosophical Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)
I. Hacking, The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975)
R. Descartes, Discours de la méthode (Paris: 1637)
J. Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), ed. J. Yolton, 3rd edn (London: Dent, 1993)
H. Hart and T. Honoré, Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985)
J. Losee, Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 102
B. Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 1961), p. 585
W. Best, Principles of the Law of Evidence and Practice as to Proofs in Courts of Common Law, 2nd edn (London: Sweet, 1854)
W. Best, A Treatise on Presumptions of Law and Fact with the Theory and Rules of Presumptive or Circumstantial Proof in Criminal Cases (London: Sweet, 1844)
É. Bonnier, Traité théorique et pratique des preuves en droit civil et en droit criminal, 2nd edn (Paris: Durand, 1852)
J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1898), p. 523
T. Starkie, A Practical Treatise on the Law of Evidence and Digest of Proofs in Civil and Criminal Proceedings (London: Clarke, 1824), p. 1736
A. Keane and S. Seabrooke (eds.), Evidence, 6th edn (Oxford: Blackstone, 2001), p. 206
J. Simpson and E. Weiner (eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
B. Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England 1550–1720 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000)
D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1740), ed. P. Nidditch, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
R. Anderson and J. Pichert, ‘Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift in Perspective’ (1978) 17 Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1–12.
G. Bower, J. Black and T. Turner, ‘Scripts in Memory for Texts’ (1979) 11 Cognitive Psychology 177–220.
R. Collingwood, ‘On the So-Called Idea of Causation’ (1937–8) 38 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 85–112.
J. Venn, Principles of Inductive Logic, 2nd edn (New York: Chelsea Publishing, 1907), p. 506
D. Schum, Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning (London: John Wiley, 1994), p. 34
R. Wright, ‘Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof: Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifying the Concepts’ (1988) 73 Iowa Law Review 1001–77
R. Wright, ‘Once More into the Bramble Bush: Duty, Causal Contribution and the Extent of Legal Responsibility’ (2001) 54 Vanderbilt Law Review 1071–132.
M. Damaška, ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289–308; 299.
N. MacCormick, ‘Norms, Institutions and Institutional Facts’ (1998) 17 Law and Philosophy 301–45
J. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969)
N. MacCormick, Institutions of Law: an Essay in Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 12.
D. Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), ed. P. Nidditch, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)
W. Hohfeld, Fundamental Legal Conceptions As Applied to Judicial Reasoning (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1923), p. 34
I. Freckleton and H. Selby, Expert Evidence (Sydney: LBC, 1993)
T. Anderson, D. Schum and W. Twining, Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 71–7.
W. Twining and I. Hampsher-Monk (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003), p. 3.
D. Schum, ‘Evidence and Inference About Past Events: An Overview of Six Case Studies’, in Twining and Hampsher-Monk (eds.), Evidence and Inference, pp. 9–62.
H. Zahle, ‘William Twining and Iain Hampsher-Monk (eds.) Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues Illinois: Northwestern UP (2003)’ (2004) 8 Evidence and Proof 211
M. Geller, ‘Wigmorean Analysis and the Survival of Cuneiform’, in Twining and Hampsher-Monk (eds.), Evidence and Inference, pp. 216–30.
T. Anderson, ‘Wigmore Meets “The Last Wedge”’, in Twining and Hampsher-Monk (eds.), Evidence and Inference, p. 147
S. Haack, Defending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism (New York: Prometheus Books, 2003)
S. Haack, ‘Trial and Error: The Supreme Court's Philosophy of Science’ (2005) 95 American Journal of Public Health S66–S73.
A. Einstein, ‘Physics and Reality’, in S. Bargmann (ed.), Ideas and Opinions of Albert Einstein (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), pp. 290–323
G. Bergmann, Philosophy of Science (Madison WI: Wisconsin University Press, 1957), p. 20
S. Haack, Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epictemology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), p. 118)
S. Haack, ‘Inquiry and Advocacy, Fallibilism and Finality: Culture and Inference in Science and Law’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 205–14.
H. Collins, ‘Scientific Evidence: A Common Sense Approach Is Needed’ (1996) 4 Expert Evidence 156–8
L. Epstein and G. King, ‘The Rules of Inference’ (2002) 69 University of Chicago Law Review 1–133, 9.
D. Bernstein, ‘Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution’ (2007) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 07–11
Lord Woolf, ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession’ (2001) 9 Medical Law Review 1–16.
P. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (London: Allen Lane. 1966), p. 17.
W. Twining, ‘Some Scepticism About Some Scepticisms’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 99–164, pp. 110–16.
S. Haack, ‘Law, Literature, and Bosh’, in C. de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 259–62, p. 261
S. Haack, ‘Reflections on Relativism: From Momentous Tautology to Seductive Contradiction’, in S. Haack, Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 149–66.
G. Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), ed. R. Woolhouse (London: Penguin, 1988)
I. Kant, ‘Critical Examination of the Analytic of Pure Practical Reason’ in I. Kant, Critique of Practical Reason (1788), trans. T. Abbott (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1898)
D. Beyleveld and R. Brownsword, Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 72
D. Dwyer, ‘Beyond Autonomy: the Role of Dignity in “Biolaw”’ (2003) 23 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 319–31.
M. Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922)
R. Brubaker, The Limits of Rationality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Thought of Max Weber (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984), p. 8.
A. Eisen, ‘The Meanings and Confusion of Weberian “Rationality”’ (1978) 29 British Journal of Sociology 57–70
S. Kalberg, ‘Max Weber's Types of Rationality’ (1980) 85 American Journal of Sociology 1145.
L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1953)
P. Winch, ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’ (1964) 1(14) American Philosophical Quarterly 307–24
S. Lukes, ‘Relativism in its Place’, in M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982), pp. 261–305.
M. Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (London: Routledge, 1970), p. xv
H. Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 89–91.
M. Rheinstein and E. Shils (eds.), Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1954)
N. Lacey, A Life of H. L. A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 230.
T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970)
R. Boyd, ‘On the Current Status of Scientific Realism’ (1983) 19 Erkenntnis 45–90
L. Laudan, ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’ (1981) 48 Philosophy of Science 19–49.
H. Maturana and F. Varela, Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980), p. 78.
N. Luhmann, Social Systems (1984), trans. J. Bednarz Jr (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995)
G. Teubner (ed.), Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988)
N. Luhmann, Law as a Social System (1993), trans. K. Ziegert (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
G. Teubner, Law as an Autopoietic System (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)
N. Luhmann, ‘European Rationality’, in G. Robinson and J. Rundell (eds.), Rethinking Imagination: Culture and Creativity (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 65–83.
G. Teubner, ‘Altera Pars Audiatur: Law in a Collision of Discourses’, in R. Rawlings (ed.), Law, Society and Economy: Centenary Essays for the London School of Economics and Political Science 1895–1995 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 149–76, p. 150
G. Teubner, ‘How the Law Thinks: Toward A Constructivist Epistemology Of Law’ (1989) 23 Law and Society Review 727–58
D. Nelken, ‘A Just Measure of Science?’ in M. Freeman and H. Reece (eds.), Science in Court (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1988), pp. 11–36
J. Paterson, ‘Trans–Science, Trans–Law and Proceduralisation’ (2003) 12 Social and Legal Studies 523–43.
M. King and F. Kaganas, ‘The Risks and Dangers of Experts in Court’ (1998) 1 Current Legal Issues 221–42
M. King, ‘An Autopoietic Approach to the Problems Presented by Parental Alienation Syndrome’ (2002) 13 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 609–35.
J. Paterson and G. Teubner, ‘Changing Maps: Empirical Legal Autopoiesis’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies 451–86.
M. Hutter and G. Teubner, ‘Homo Juridicus and Homo Oeconomicus: Communicate Fictions’ in T. Baums, K. Hopt and N. Horn (eds.), Corporations, Capital Markets and Business in the Law (Den Haag: Kluwer, 2000), p. 569
N. Luhmann, Differentiation of Society, trans. S. Holmes and C. Larmore (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 130.
K. Ziegert, ‘The Thick Description of Law: an Introduction to Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Operatively Closed Systems’, in R. Banakar and M. Travers (eds.), An Introduction to Law and Social Theory (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 55–75.
M. King and C. Thornhill, ‘Will the Real Niklas Luhmann Stand Up, Please? A Reply to John Mingers’ (2003) 51 Sociological Review 276–85.
J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997), p. 53.
E. Beecher-Monas, Evaluating Scientific Evidence: an Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
E. Tufte, Beautiful Evidence (Cheshire CT: Graphics Press, 2006), p. 9.

Reference Type: notes

H. Engelhardt and A. Caplan (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)
T. Golan, Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2004)
R. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 270–7
G. Edmond, ‘After Objectivity: Expert Evidence and Procedural Reform’ (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review 131–64
J. Watson, The Double Helix (New York: Norton, 1967)
P. Kitcher, The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 303–89
P. Kitcher, ‘Truth or Consequences?’ (1998) 72 Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 49–63
A. Goldman, Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 221–71
‘Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence’ (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 216–51
P. Kitcher, ‘1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences’ (1984) 93 Philosophical Review 335–73, 335
P. Kitcher, ‘Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy’ (2001) 110 Philosophical Review 151–97
R. Boyd, ‘On the Current Status of Scientific Realism’ (1983) 19 Erkenntnis 45–90, 45
L. Laudan, ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’ (1981) 48 Philosophy of Science 19–49, 20
I. Hacking, ‘Experimentation and Scientific Realism’ (1982) 13 Philosophical Topics 71–87
S. Haack, Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), pp. 81–9
S. Haack, Defending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism (New York: Prometheus Books, 2003), pp. 57–67, 93
M. Schlick, ‘Positivismus und Realismus’ (1932) 3 Erkenntnis 1–31
K. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), trans. K. Popper (London: Hutchinson, 1959)
C. Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: Free Press, 1965), p. 4
C. Hempel, ‘The Irrelevance of the Concept of Truth for the Critical Appraisal of Scientific Theories’ in R. Jeffrey (ed.), Selected Philosophical Essays [by] Carl G. Hempel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 77–78
T. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)
P. Kitcher, ‘Implications of Incommensurability’ (1982) 2 Philosophy of Science Association 689–703
P. Feyerabend, ‘Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism’, in H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. III (Minneapolis MN: Minnesota University Press, 1962) pp. 28–97
P. Feyerabend, ‘On the “Meaning” of Scientific Terms’ (1964) 61 Journal of Philosophy 497–509
P. Kitcher, ‘Theories, Theorists and Theoretical Change’ (1978) 87 Philosophical Review 519–547
W. Quine, ‘On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World’ (1975) 9 Erkenntnis 313–28
M. Levy and M. Salvadori, Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail (New York: Norton, 1992)
H. Hart and T. Honoré, Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 9–10
S. Brewer, ‘Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process’ (1998) 103 Yale Law Journal 1535–681
L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58
D. Nelken, ‘A Just Measure of Science?’ in M. Freeman and H. Reece (eds.), Science in Court (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1988), pp. 11–36
M. Damaška, ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289–308, 299
M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 28
J. O'Reilly and C. Buenger, Toxic Torts Practice Guide, 2nd edn (Eagan MN: West, 2004)
J. Weinstein and E. Hershenov, ‘The Effect of Equity on Mass Tort Law’ [1991] University of Illinois Law Review 269–327
K. McPherson, ‘One Expert's Experience’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 159–80
R. van Krieken, ‘The “Best Interests of the Child” and Parental Separation: on the “Civilizing of Parents”’ (2005) 68 Modern Law Review 25–48
S. Sclater and C. Piper, ‘Social Exclusion and the Welfare of the Child’ (2001) 28 Journal of Law and Society 409–29
J. Eekelaar, ‘The Emergence of Children's Rights’ (1986) 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 161–82
R. Mnookin, ‘Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy’ (1975) 39 Law and Contemporary Problems 226–93
A. Bainham, Children: The Modern Law, 2nd edn (Bristol: Jordan Publishing, 1998), p. 35
J. Brophy P. Bates, L. Brown, S. Cohen and P. Radcliffe, Expert Evidence in Child Protection Litigation – Where Do We Go From Here? (London: The Stationery Office, 1999), p. 11
N. Rose and M. Valverde, ‘Governed by Law?’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies 541–53
C. Yates, ‘Doctoring the Evidence: Medical Evidence in Child Custody Cases in Australia’ (1986) 5 Civil Justice Quarterly 144, 148
M. Hutter and G. Teubner, ‘Homo Juridicus and Homo Oeconomicus: Communicate Fictions’, in T. Baums, K. Hopt and N. Horn (eds.), Corporations, Capital Markets and Business in the Law (Den Haag: Kluwer, 2000), p. 569
Lord Woolf, ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession’ (2001) 9 Medical Law Review 1–16
P. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (New York: Basic Books, 1991)
S. Becker, ‘Child Sexual Abuse Allegations Against a Lesbian or Gay Parent in a Custody or Visitation Dispute: Battling the Overt and Insidious Bias of Experts and Judges’ (1996) 74 Denver University Law Review 75–158
P. Craig, Administrative Law, 5th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003), pp. 459–61
M. King, ‘An Autopoietic Approach to the Problems Presented by Parental Alienation Syndrome’ (2002) 13 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 609–35
T. Bingham, ‘Hired Gun Takes a Bullet’ (2005) 5 Building 50
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1995)
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996)
S. Jasanoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1995), pp. 46–7
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006)
Civil Justice Council, Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims (London: 2005)
B. Sales and D. Shuman, Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2005), p. 139
R. Meadow (ed.), The ABC of Child Abuse, 3rd edn (London: BMJ Publishing, 1997), p. 29
J. Langbein, ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823–66
R. Nisbett and L. Ross, Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980)
D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)
M. Solomon, ‘Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning’ (1992) 59 Philosophy of Science 439–55, 439–40
K. Brad Wray, ‘Science, Biases, and the Threat of Global Pessimism’ (2001) 68 Philosophy of Science S467–S478
M. Solomon, Social Empiricism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2001)
A. Zuckerman, ‘Miscarriage of Justice – A Root Treatment’ [1992] Criminal Law Review 323–45
R. Rosenthal, ‘Interpersonal Expectations: Effects of the Experimenter's Hypothesis’, in R. Rosenthal and R. Rosnow (eds.), Artifact in Behavioral Research (New York: Academic Press, 1969), pp. 181–277, pp. 181–84
I. Dror and D. Charlton, ‘Why Experts Make Errors’ (2006) 56 Journal of Forensic Identification 600–16
I. Dror, D. Charlton and A. Peron, ‘Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications’ (2006) 156 Forensic Science International 74–8
J. Maddox, J. Randi and W. Stewart, ‘“High–Dilution” Experiments a Delusion’ (1998) 334 (6180) Nature 287
J. Jackson, ‘The Effect of Legal Culture and Proof in Decisions to Prosecute’ (2004) 3 Law Probability and Risk 109–31, 124–5
A. Zuckerman, ‘Coercion and the Judicial Ascertainment of Truth’ (1989) 23 Israel Law Review 357–74, 363–9
M. Redmayne, Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 202

Reference Type: notes

A. Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
H. Ho, A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
L. Laudan, Truth, Error and Criminal Law – An Essay in Legal Epistemology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
J. Jackson, ‘The Effect of Legal Culture and Proof in Decisions to Prosecute’ (2004) 3 Law Probability and Risk 109–31
M. Damaška, ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study’ (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 506–89
G. Edmond and D. Mercer, ‘Experts and Expertise in Legal and Regulatory Settings’, in G. Edmond (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), pp. 1–31, p. 9
P. Legrand, ‘European Legal Systems are not Converging’ (1996) 45 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 52–81
P. Legrand, ‘The Impossibility of Legal Transplants’ (1997) 4 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 111–24
A. Watson, Legal Transplants, 2nd edn (Athens GA: Georgia University Press, 1993)
W. Twining, ‘Social Science and Diffusion of Law’ (2005) 32 Journal of Law and Society 203–40
P. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
A. Watson, ‘Legal Transplants and European Private Law’ (2000) 4 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law, www.ejcl.org/44/art44–2.html (last accessed 14 December 2007)
E. Grande, ‘Italian Criminal Justice: Borrowing and Resistance’ (2000) 48 American Journal of Comparative Law 227–59
D. Dwyer, ‘Changing Approaches to Expert Evidence in England and Italy’ (2002) 1 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 2, art. 4, www.bepress.com/ice/vol1/iss2/art4 (last accessed 1 August 2008)
J. Resnik, ‘Changing Practices, Changing Rules: Judicial and Congressional Rule Making on Civil Juries, Civil Justice and Civil Judging’ (1997) 49 Alabama Law Review 133–219
O. Chase, ‘Legal Processes and National Culture’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 1–24
John Langbein's suggestion (in ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823–66
‘Cultural Chauvinism in Comparative Law’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 41–50
J. Jackson, ‘Playing the Culture Card in Cross-Jurisdictional Transplants’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 51–67
D. Nelken and J. Feest (eds.), Adapting Legal Cultures (Oxford: Hart, 2001)
M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 119
C. Oddie, Science and the Administration of Justice (London: Justice, 1991)
M. Howard, ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 98–105
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996), [13.5]
Civil Justice Council, Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims (London: 2005)
Lord Justice (Sir Mark) Waller, I Scott, Sir Henry Brooke et al. (eds.), Civil Procedure, 2 vols. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007) (The White Book), [35.4.1]
G. Gilbert, The Law of Evidence, ed. C. Lofft, 4th edn (Dublin: 1795)
D. Dwyer, ‘Legal Remedies for the Negligent Expert’ (2008) 12 Evidence and Proof 93–115
J. Leslie, ‘From Bear Garden to Swan Lake’ Counsel (August 2005) 22–3, 23
Law Reform Committee England and Wales, Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence, 17th Report, Cmnd 4489 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1970)
J. Basten, ‘The Court Expert in Civil Trials – A Comparative Appraisal’ (1977) 41 Modern Law Review 174–91, 181
P. Johnston, ‘Court Appointed Scientific Expert Witnesses: Unfettering Expertise’ (1987) 2 Berkeley Technology Law Journal, www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol2/johnston.pdf (last accessed 14 December 2007)
H. Erichson, ‘Mass Tort Litigation and Inquisitorial Justice’ (1999) 87 Georgetown Law Journal 1983–2024, 1987
S. Haack, Defending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism (New York: Prometheus Books, 2003)
M. Angell, Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case (New York: Norton, 1996)
P. Oh, ‘The Proper Test for Assessing the Admissibility of Nonscientific Expert Testimony Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702’ (1997) 45 Cleveland State Law Review 437–67
D. Mogck, ‘Are We There Yet? Refining the Test for Expert Testimony Through Daubert, Kumho Tire and Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 702’ (2000) 33 Connecticut Law Review 303–36
P. Roberts, ‘Tyres with a “Y”: An English Perspective on Kumho Tire and its Implications for the Admissibility of Expert Evidence’ (1999) 1 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 2, art. 5, www.bepress.com/ice/vol1/iss2/art5 (last accessed 14 December 2007)
J. Beardsley, ‘Proof of Fact in French Civil Procedure’ (1986) 34 American Journal of Comparative Law 459–86, 468
L. Cadiet and E. Jeuland, Droit judiciaire privé, 5th edn (Paris: Litec, 2006), p. 394
R. Encinas de Munagorri, ‘La communauté scientifique est-elle un ordre juridique?’ [1998] Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 247–83
O. Leclerc, ‘Les réformes du droit de l'expertise’ (2006) 71 Experts 12
J. Spencer, ‘Court Experts and Expert Witnesses: Have We a Lesson to Learn from the French?’ (1992) 45 Current Legal Problems 213–36, 225–6
D. Bourcier and M. De Bonis, Les paradoxes de l'expertise: savoir ou juger? (Paris: Institut Synthélab, 1999), p. 17
O. Leclerc, Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l’étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005)
E. Jeuland, ‘Expertise’, in L. Cadiet (ed.), Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), pp. 503–10, p. 508
C. Ngwasiri, ‘Some Problems of Expertise in French Civil Procedure’ (1989) 8 Civil Justice Quarterly 168–83
B. De La Roche-Flavin, Arrests notables du parlement de Toulouse, ed. N. Caranove (Toulouse: 1745), p. 458
M.-L. Rassat, ‘Forensic Expertise and the Law of Evidence in France’, in J. Nijboer, C. Callen and N. Kwak (eds.), Forensic Expertise and the Law of Evidence (Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences 1993), p. 54, p. 62
A. Jacquin, ‘L'impartialité objective de l'expert judiciaire et sa récusation’ 31 Gazette du Palais (1 February 2003) 3–8, 4
S. Timmerbeil, ‘The Role of Expert Witnesses in German and US Civil Litigation’ (2003) 9 Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law 163–87
H. Hammelmann, ‘Rules of Evidence Under the New Italian Civil Codes’ (1947) 29 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 39–46, 40
D. Nelken, ‘Law and Disorder: A Letter from Italy’ (1992) 8 Socio-Legal Newsletter 6
M. Damaška, The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1986)
M. Ferrarese, ‘An Entrepreneurial Conception of the Law? The American Model Through Italian Eyes’, in D. Nelken, Comparing Legal Cultures (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), pp. 157–81
R. Helmholz, Canon Law and the Law of England (London: Hambledon Press, 1987), pp. 36–7
J. Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 3
W. Twining, ‘Alternative to What? Theories of Litigation, Procedure and Dispute Settlement in Anglo-American Jurisprudence: Some Neglected Classics’ (1993) 56 Modern Law Review 380–92
C. Aubry and C. Rau, Cours de droit civil français, 5th edn (Paris: Billard, 1922), p. 74
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006), pp. 27–9
W. Odgers, ‘Changes in Procedure and the Law of Evidence’, in A Century of Law Reform (London: Macmillan, 1901), pp. 203–40, p. 203
J. Jacob, The Fabric of English Civil Justice (London: Stevens, 1987), pp. 246–50
P. Oberhammer and T. Domej, ‘Germany, Switzerland and Austria (ca. 1800–2005)’, in C. van Rhee (ed.), European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), pp. 103–28, p. 121
P. Gottwald, ‘Simplified Civil Procedure in West Germany’ (1983) 31 American Journal of Comparative Law 687–701, at 687
A. Freckmann and T. Wegerich, The German Legal System (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1999), p. 142
H. Kötz, ‘Civil Litigation and Public Interest’ (1982) 1 Civil Justice Quarterly 237, 239
S. Chiarloni, ‘Civil Justice and its Paradoxes: An Italian Perspective’, in A. Zuckerman, S. Chiarloni and P. Gottwald, Civil Justice in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999) pp. 263–90, p. 265
G. Chiovenda, Principii di diritto processuale civile: le azioni, il processo di cognizione, 3rd edn (Naples: Eugenio Jovene, 1965), p. 65
M. Cappelletti and J. Perillo, Civil Procedure in Italy (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965), pp. 174–5
L. Cadiet, ‘The New French Code of Civil Procedure (1975)’, in C. van Rhee (ed.), European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), pp. 49–68, p. 50
Cour de cassation, Le nouveau code de procédure civile: vingt ans après (Paris: La Documentation Française, 1998)
R. Millar (ed.), A History of Continental Civil Procedure (London: J. Murray, 1928), pp. 681 and 723
J.-C. Magendie, Célérité et qualité de la justice: la gestion du temps dans le procès. Rapport au Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice (Paris: La Documentation française, 2004)
H. Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 57
Lord Woolf, J. Jowell and A. Le Sueur (eds.), De Smith, Woolf and Jowell's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1995)
S. Gross, ‘Expert Evidence’ (1991) 6 Wisconsin Law Review 1113–232, 1191
W. Twining, Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985), pp. 47–8
M. Damaška, ‘Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1083–106
J. Langbein, ‘Trashing the German Advantage’ (1988) 82 Northwestern University Law Review 763–84, 772
B. Kaplan, A. von Mehren and R. Schaefer, ‘Phases of German Civil Procedure I’ (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review 1193–268
D. Dwyer, ‘What Does it Mean to be Free? The Concept of Free Proof in the Western European Legal Tradition’ (2005) 3 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 1, art. 6, www.bepress.com/ice/vol3/iss1/art6 (last accessed 1 August 2008)
P. Margot, ‘The Role of the Forensic Scientist in an Inquisitorial System of Justice’ (1998) 38 Science and Justice 71–3, 71
W. Twining, ‘Freedom of Proof and the Reform of Criminal Evidence’ (1997) 31 Israel Law Review 439–63
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005)
R. Aigler and I. Yates, ‘The Triangle of Culture, Inference and Litigation System’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 137–50
M. Damaška, ‘Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 25–39
M. Damaška, ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289–308
M. Damaška, ‘Epistemology and Legal Regulation of Proof’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 117–30
W. Twining, ‘Taking Facts Seriously’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 14–34
M. Taruffo, ‘Senso comune, esperienza e scienza nel ragionamento del giudice’, in Sui confini: scritti sulla giustizia civile (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2002) pp. 121–55, pp. 121–2
A. Sériaux, ‘Pouvoir scientifique, savoir juridique’ (1991) 13 Droits 61–6
M. Taruffo, La prova dei fatti giuridici (Milan: Giuffrè, 1992), p. 67
J. Resnik, ‘Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III’ (2000) 113 Harvard Law Review 924–1037
E. Sward, The Decline of the Civil Jury (Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2001), p. 13
M. Galanter, ‘The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts’ (2004) 1 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 459–570
P. Atiyah and R. Summers, Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987)
R. Posner, Law and Legal Theory in England and America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), p. 30
P. Cooper, ‘Training’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 149–57
F. Carter, ‘Court Order Violations, Witness Coaching, and Obstructing Access to Witnesses: An Examination of the Unethical Attorney Conduct that Nearly Derailed the Moussaoui Trial’ (2007) 20 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 463–74
H. Hammelmann, ‘Expert Evidence’ (1947) 11 Modern Law Review 32–9
S. Moss, ‘Opinion for Sale: Confessions of an Expert Witness’ Legal Affairs March/April 2003
P. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (New York: Basic Books, 1991)
D. Bernstein, ‘Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution’ (2007) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 07–11, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=963461 (last accessed 1 August 2008)
S. Jasanoff, Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)
D. Walton, Legal Argumentation and Evidence (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002), pp. 178, 239
G. Edmond and D. Mercer, ‘Daubert and the Exclusionary Ethos: The Convergence of Corporate and Judicial Attitudes Towards the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Tort Litigation’ (2004) 26 Law and Policy 231–57
G. Edmond and D. Mercer, ‘The Invisible Branch: The Authority of Science Studies in Expert Evidence Jurisprudence’, in G. Edmond (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), pp. 197–291, pp. 225–6
K. Chesebro, ‘Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship’ (1993) 42 American University Law Review 1637–726
G. Edmond, ‘After Objectivity: Expert Evidence and Procedural Reform’ (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review 131–64
B. Sales and D. Shuman, Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2005), p. 139
J. Matson, Effective Expert Witnessing, 3rd edn (Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1999), pp. 17–26
F. Goodall, ‘The Expert Witness: Partisan with a Conscience’ (1990) 56 Journal of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
J. Spencer, ‘The Neutral Expert: An Implausible Bogey’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 106–10
P. van Kampen, Expert Evidence Compared: Rules and Practices in the Dutch and American Criminal Justice System (Antwerp: Intersentia Rechtswetenschappen, 1998)
R. Porter, England in the Eighteenth Century, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990)
M. Bardet-Giraudon, ‘The Place of the Expert in the French Legal System’, in J. Spencer, G. Nicholson, R. Flin and R. Bull (eds.), Children's Evidence in Legal Proceedings. An International Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge Law Faculty, 1990), pp. 68–70, p. 69
E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)
N. Cox, ‘The Influence of the Common Law on the Decline of the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England’ (2001) 3 Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_3.pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)
S. Phillips, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, 2nd edn (London: Strahan, 1815), p. 110
W. Senior, Doctors’ Commons and the Old Court of Admiralty (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1922), pp. 14–16
E. Roscoe, The High Court of Admiralty: The Last Phase (London: Kelly Law Book, 1927), pp. 3–4

Reference Type: notes

M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 119.
T. Forbes, Surgeons at the Bailey: English Forensic Medicine to 1878 (New Haven CT: Yale University Press,1985)
S. Landsman, ‘One Hundred Years of Rectitude: Medical Witnesses at the Old Bailey, 1717–1817’ (1998) 16 Law and History Review 445–94
J. Mnookin, ‘Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Expertise’ (2001) 87 Virginia Law Review 1723–1845
T. Ward, ‘Experts, Juries and Witch-Hunts: From Fitzjames Stephen to Angela Cannings’ (2004) 31 Journal of Law and Society 369–86
T. Ward, ‘Observers, Advisers, or Authorities? Experts, Juries and Criminal Responsibility in Historical Perspective’ (2001) 12 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 105–22.
T. Golan, ‘The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in the English Courtroom’ (1999) 12 Science in Context 7–34
T. Golan, Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2004).
D. Dwyer, ‘Expert Evidence in the English Civil Courts, 1550–1800’ (2007) 28 Journal of Legal History 93–118.
J. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence at the Common Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge MA: Charles W. Fever, 1900), p. 666.
J. Langbein, The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
H. Consett, Practice of the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Courts (London: Basset, 1685)
J. Hall, The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty (1809) (Ann Arbor MI: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 2004)
J. Prichard and D. Yale (eds.), Hale and Fleetwood on Admiralty Jurisdiction, folio 108 (London: Selden Society, 1992).
J. Oldham, The Mansfield Manuscripts and the Growth of English Law in the Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill NC: North Carolina University Press, 1992)
D. Yale (ed.), Lord Nottingham's Chancery Cases, 2 vols., folios 73 and 79 (London: Selden Society, 1954 and 1961).
W. Bryson, Cases Concerning Equity and the Courts of Equity 1550–1660, 2 vols., folios 117 and 118 (London: Selden Society, 2000 and 2001)
British Trials 1660–1900: The Guide to the Microfiche Edition Containing a Full Bibliographical Listing Together with Nine Indexes (Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1990)
G. Marsden (ed.), Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty (1547–1602), 2 vols., folios 6 and 11 (London: Selden Society, 1892 and 1897).
T. Gallanis, ‘Legal History with 21st Century Tools: the English Reports on CD-ROM and Bracton on the Web’ (1999) 20 Journal of Legal History 109
J. Oldham, ‘Jury Research in the English Reports in CD-ROM’, in J. Cairns and G. McLeod (eds.), The Dearest Birthright of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 131–53.
J. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th edn (London: Butterworths, 2002), p. 182.
O. Leclerc, Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l'étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005).
G. Gilbert, The Law of Evidence, ed. C. Lofft, 4th edn (Dublin: 1795)
J. Stephen, A General View of the Criminal Law of England (London: McMillan, 1863), pp. 189–90.
J. Langbein, ‘Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 1–136.
G. van Cleve, ‘Somerset's Case and its Antecedents in Imperial Perspective’ (2006) 24 Law and History Review 601–46
M. Macnair, The Law of Proof in Early Modern Equity (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1999), pp. 25–40.
G. Squibb, Doctors' Commons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 1–22
R. Helmholz, The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. II: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 227
E. Roscoe, The High Court of Admiralty: The Last Phase (London: Kelly Law Book, 1927)
W. Senior, Doctors' Commons and the Old Court of Admiralty (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1922), pp. 3–4.
A. Samuels, ‘A Unified Civil Court’ (2006) 25 Civil Justice Quarterly 250–60.
T. Allibone, ‘The Club of the Royal College of Physicians, the Smeatonian Society of Civil Engineers and their Relationship to the Royal Society Club’ (1967) 22 Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 186–92.
S. Landsman, ‘Of Witches, Madmen, and Products Liability: An Historical Survey of the Use of Expert Testimony’ (1995) 13 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 131–57, at 141.
J. Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Tiller (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983) vol. iv p. 105.
T. Golan ‘Scientific Expert Testimony in Anglo-American Courts, 1782–1923’, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley (1997), 14.
R. Porter, England in the Eighteenth Century, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990), p. 81.
P. Corfield, Power and the Professions in Britain 1700–1850 (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 23.
R. O'Day, The Professions in Early Modern England 1450–1800 (Harlow: Longman, 2000), p. 23.
B. Shapiro, ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ and ‘Probable Cause’: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence (Berkeley CA: California University Press, 1991).
Sir Francis Bacon's 1605 Advancement of Learning (London)
Galileo Galilei's 1632 Dialogo sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Florence: Giovanni Battista Landini, 1632)
John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (c. 1690), ed. J. Yolton, 3rd edn (London: Dent, 1993)
C. Jones, Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine, and the Practice of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
F. Freemon, ‘The Origin of the Medical Expert Witness: the Insanity of Edward Oxford’ (2001) 22 Journal of Legal Medicine 349–73.
S. Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)
B. Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England 1550–1720 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), pp. 25 and 118.
W. Best, Principles of the Law of Evidence and Practice as to Proofs in Courts of Common Law, 2nd edn (London: Sweet, 1854), p. 593
J. Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (London: Maxwell & Son, 1848), p. 55
J. Mohr, Doctors and the Law: Medical Jurisprudence in Nineteenth-Century America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
J. Oldham, ‘The Origins of the Special Jury’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 137–221, 138.
N. Howlin, ‘Special Juries: A Solution to the Expert Witness’ (2004) Irish Student Law Review 19–47, 33.
J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1898), p. 94.
M. Lobban, ’The Strange Life of the English Civil Jury, 1837–1914’, in J. Cairns and G. McLeod (eds.), The Dearest Birthright of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 173–215, pp. 199–203.
R. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001), ch. 5.
‘Practice and Potential of the Advisory Jury’ (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 1363–81
K. Bertelsen, ‘From Specialized Courts to Specialized Juries: Calling for Professional Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1998) 3 Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy 1
A. Feigenbaum, ‘Special Juries: Deterring Spurious Medical Malpractice Litigation in State Courts’ (2003) 24 Cardozo Law Review 1361–420.
A. Ruddock, ‘The Trinity House at Deptford in the Sixteenth Century’ (1950) 65 English Historical Review 458–76, at 464
Re Rumney and Wood (1541), in Marsden (ed.), Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty, pp. 102–4, trans. pp. 213–15
A. Dickey, ‘The Province and Function of Assessors in English Courts’ 33 Modern Law Review (1970) 494–507.
G. Steckley, ‘Collisions, Prohibitions, and the Admiralty Court in Seventeenth-Century London’ (2003) 21 Law and History Review 41–67 at fn. 69
G. Steckley, ‘Merchants and the Admiralty Court During the English Revolution’ (1978) 22 American Journal of Legal History 137–75.
C. Crawford, ‘Legalizing Medicine: Early Modern Legal Systems and the Growth of Medico-legal Knowledge’, in M. Clark and C. Crawford, Legal Medicine in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 89–116.
P. Murphy, Evidence, 9th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 501
Lord Justice (Sir Mark) Waller, I. Scott, Sir H. Brooke et al. (eds.), Civil Procedure, 2 vols. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007)
S. Landsman, ‘The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England’ (1990) 75 Cornell Law Review, 497–609
J. Mitnick, ‘From Neighbor-Witness to Judge of Proofs: the Transformation of the English Civil Juror’ (1988) 32 American Journal of Legal History 201–35.
L. Blom-Cooper, ‘Historical Background’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 1–15, p. 7.
J. Beuscher, ‘The Use of Experts by the Courts’ (1941) 54 Harvard Law Review 1105–27, 1118.
Judicature Commission, First Report of the Commissioners (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1869), p. 12.
S. Phipson, The Law of Evidence, 1st edn (London: Stevens, 1892).
J. Basten, ‘The Court Expert in Civil Trials – A Comparative Appraisal’ (1977) 41 Modern Law Review 174–91, 177.
H. Hammelmann, ‘Expert Evidence’ (1947) 11 Modern Law Review 32–9.
J. Spencer, ‘Court Experts and Expert Witnesses: Have We a Lesson to Learn from the French?’ (1992) 45 Current Legal Problems 213–36
J. Spencer, ‘The Neutral Expert: An Implausible Bogey’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 106–10.
M. Howard, ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 98–105.
C. Oddie, Science and the Administration of Justice (London: Justice, 1991).
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005), [33.12]
W. Twining, ‘Civilians Don't Try: A Comment on Mirjan Damaška's “Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited”’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 69–78
M. Damaška, ‘Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 25–39.
L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58
P. Craig, Administrative Law, 5th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003), pp. 522–3.
M. Fordham, Judicial Review Handbook, 4th edn (Oxford: Hart, 2004), [50.2]
J. Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Chadbown (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981), vol. VII, [1920]–[1921].
J. Jackson, ‘The Ultimate Issue Rule: One Rule Too Many’ [1984] Criminal Law Review 75.
P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 321.
R. Jackson, ‘The Incidence of Jury Trial during the Past Century’ (1937) 1 Modern Law Review 132–44.
C. Allen, The Law of Evidence in Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 14.

Reference Type: notes

L. Cadiet, ‘The New French Code of Civil Procedure (1975)', in C. van Rhee, European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), pp. 49–68, pp. 56–9.
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell 2006)
Waller, I. Scott, Sir H. Brooke et al. (eds.), Civil Procedure, 2 vols. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007)
M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 74
I. Dennis, The Law of Evidence, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2002), p. 431
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1995)
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996)
D. Dwyer, ‘Changing Approaches to Expert Evidence in England and Italy’ (2002) 1 International Commentary on Evidence
J. Jacob, Civil Justice in the Age of Human Rights (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007)
J. Peysner, ‘Controlling Costs’ (2003) 153 (7090) New Law Journal 1147–8.
G. Ubertis, Argomenti di procedura penale (Milan: Giuffrè, 2002), p. 5
R. Jacob, ‘Court Appointed Experts v Party Experts: Which is Better?’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 400–7.
P. Bowden, P. Croall and R. Parker, The Woolf Reforms in Practice: Freshfields Assess the Changing Landscape (London: Butterworths, 1999), p. 89.
J. Jacob, ‘Meetings of Experts Without Prejudice’ (1986) 5 Civil Justice Quarterly 279.
I. Scott, ‘Immunity from Suit of Expert Witnesses’ (1998) 17 Civil Justice Quarterly 349–53.
G. Davies, ‘Court Appointed Experts’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 367–85.
G. Davies, ‘Recent Australian Developments: A Response to Peter Heerey’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 396–99
M. Damaška, ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289–308, 306
C. Tapper, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 336.
W. Twining, Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985), p. 31.
J. Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Tiller (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983), vol. V 32, s. 1367.
B. Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 1961), p. 109
R. Alexy, A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
J. Jolowicz, ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure’ (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 281–95, 283.
J. Spencer and J. Flin, The Evidence of Children – The Law and the Psychology, 2nd edn (London: Blackstone, 1993), p. 270
J. Langbein, The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 270.
S. Jasanoff, ‘What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science’ (1992) 32 Jurimetrics 345–59, 353.
C. Jones, Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine, and the Practice of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 149
P. Rock, ‘Witnesses and Space in a Crown Court’ (2001) 31 British Journal of Criminology 266–79, 268.
M. Howard, ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 98–105.
D. Carson, Professionals and the Courts – A Handbook for Expert Witnesses (Birmingham: Venture Press, 1990).
J. Spencer, ‘The Neutral Expert: An Implausible Bogey’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 106–10, 107.
J. Matson, Effective Expert Witnessing, 3rd edn (Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1999), p. 96.
P. Heerey, ‘Recent Australian Developments’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 386–95, 390.
D. Bourcier and M. De Bonis, Les paradoxes de l'expertise: savoir ou juger? (Paris: Institut Synthélab, 1999), pp. 45–58.
Academy of Experts, Code of Guidance for Experts and Those Instructing Them, 2nd edn (London: Academy of Experts, 2001)
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005)
L. Blom-Cooper, ‘Experts and Assessors: Past, Present and Future’ (2002) 21 Civil Justice Quarterly 341–456, 352
M. Bardet-Giraudon, ‘The Place of the Expert in the French Legal System’, in J. Spencer, G. Nicholson, R. Flin and R. Bull (eds.), Children's Evidence in Legal Proceedings. An International Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge Law Faculty, 1990), pp. 68–70, p. 68.
R. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001)
P. Murphy, Evidence, 9th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 471

Reference Type: notes

S. Burn and B. Thompson, ‘Single Joint Expert’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 57–75, p. 58.
A. Goldman, Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 310.
T. Ward, ‘Experts, Juries and Witch-Hunts: From Fitzjames Stephen to Angela Cannings’ (2004) 31 Journal of Law and Society 369–86, 375.
M. Bardet-Giraudon, ‘The Place of the Expert in the French Legal System’, in J. Spencer, G. Nicholson, R. Flin and R. Bull (eds.), Children's Evidence in Legal Proceedings. An International Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge Law Faculty, 1990), pp. 68–70, p. 69.
R. Helmholz, Canon Law and the Law of England (London: Hambledon Press, 1987), pp. 21 and 35
O. Leclerc, Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l'étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005).
M. Fordham, Judicial Review Handbook, 4th edn (Oxford: Hart, 2004), p. 1044.
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006), p. 84.
S. Haack, Defending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism (New York: Prometheus Books, 2003), pp. 223–64.
E. Beecher-Monas, Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
D. Bernstein, ‘Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution’ (2007) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 07–11, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=963461 (last accessed 1 August 2008).
G. Edmond and D. Mercer, ‘Daubert and the Exclusionary Ethos: The Convergence of Corporate and Judicial Attitudes Towards the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Tort Litigation’ (2004) 26 Law and Policy 231–57, 231
G. Edmond, and D. Mercer ‘Experts and Expertise in Legal and Regulatory Settings’, in G. Edmond (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), pp. 1–31, pp. 4–5
G. Edmond and D. Mercer, ‘The Invisible Branch: The Authority of Science Studies in Expert Evidence Jurisprudence’, in G. Edmond (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), pp. 197–291, pp. 225–6.
P. Kitcher, ‘Truth or Consequences?’ (1998) 72 Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 49–63.
A. Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
E. Check and D. Cyranoski, ‘Korean Scandal will have Global Fallout’ (2005) 438 Nature 1056–7
G. Brumfiel, ‘Misconduct? It's All Academic…’ (2007) 445 Nature 240–1
U. Deichmann and B. Müller-Hill, ‘The Fraud of Abderhalden's Enzymes’ (1998) 393 Nature 109–11
J. Brundage, ‘The Ethics of the Legal Profession: Mediaeval Canonists and their Clients’ (1973) 33 The Jurist 237
J. Brundage, ‘The Calumny Oath and Ethical Ideas of Canonical Advocates’, in P. Landau and J Müller (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law: Monumenta iuris canonici: Subsidia, vol. x, (Vatican City: 1997), pp. 793–805, p. 793
R. Cory-Pearce, ‘The Three Princes of Serendip or the Happy Avoidance of Accidents’, Society of Expert Witnesses, March 1998, www.sew.org.uk/dispatch/three_princes.htm (east accessed 14 December 2007)
A. Head, ‘The Role of an Expert Defined’ (1998) 9 Dispatches www.sew.org.uk/dispatch/role.htm (last accessed 14 December 2007).
F. Goodall, ‘The Expert Witness: Partisan with a Conscience’ (1990) 56 Journal of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, quoted in Cala Homes, at 841–4.
R. Pattenden, ‘Litigation Privilege and Expert Opinion Evidence’ (2000) 4 Evidence and Proof 213–45
J. Langbein, The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 16.
P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 57
A. Zuckerman, ‘Disclosure of Expert Reports’ (2005) 24 Civil Justice Quarterly 293–7.
K. Soothill, ‘Perjury and False Statements: A Criminal Profile of Persons Convicted 1979–2001’ [2004] Criminal Law Review 926–35.
S. Edwards, ‘Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice Considered’ [2003] Criminal Law Review 525–40.
Civil Justice Council's Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims (London: 2005), [4.7]
D. Dwyer, ‘The Duties of Expert Witnesses of Fact and Opinion’ (2003) 7 Evidence and Proof 264–9.
R. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001), p. 572, [11.130]
E. Ebsworth, ‘Accreditation: A Novel Approach’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 17–28.

Reference Type: notes

M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 151
D. Nelken, ‘Law and Knowledge / Law as Knowledge’ (2006) 15 Social Legal Studies 570–3
W. Twining, ‘Some Scepticism About Some Scepticisms’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 99–164, pp. 120–2
E. Gettier, ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ (1963) 23 Analysis 121–3
T. Williamson, Knowledge and its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
R. Mackay and A. Colman, ‘Equivocal Rulings on Expert Psychological and Psychiatric Evidence: Turning a Muddle into a Nonsense’ [1996] Criminal Law Review 88–95
N. Vidmar and R. Schuller, ‘Juries and Expert Evidence: Social Framework Testimony’ (1989) 52 Law and Contemporary Problems 133–76
Lord Woolf, ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?’ (2001) 9 Medical Law Review 1–16
A. Goldman, Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 7
Rorty: ‘[W]e understand knowledge when we understand the social justification of belief, and thus have no need to view it as accuracy of representation’: Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1970), p. 170

Reference Type: bibliography

Academy of Experts, Code of Guidance for Experts and Those Instructing Them, 2nd edn (London: Academy of Experts, 2001)
Aigler, R. and Yates, I. ‘The Triangle of Culture, Inference and Litigation System’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 137–50
Alexy, R. A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
Allen, C. The Law of Evidence in Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)
Allibone, T. ‘The Club of the Royal College of Physicians, the Smeatonian Society of Civil Engineers and their Relationship to the Royal Society Club’ (1967) 22 Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 186–92
Anderson, R. and Pichert, J. ‘Recall of Previously Unrecallable Information Following a Shift in Perspective’ (1978) 17 Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1–12
Anderson, T. ‘On Generalizations I: A Preliminary Exploration’ (1999) 40 South Texas Law Review 455–81
Anderson, T. ‘Wigmore Meets “The Last Wedge”’, in W. Twining and I. Hampsher-Monk (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003), pp. 140–215
Anderson, T., Schum, D. and Twining, W. Analysis of Evidence, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Angell, M. Science on Trial: the Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in The Breast Implant Case (New York: Norton, 1996)
Anscombe, G. ‘On Brute Facts’ (1958) 18 Analysis 69–72
Atiyah, P. and Summers, R. Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987)
Aubry, C. and Rau, C. Cours de droit civil français, 5th edn (Paris: Billard, 1922)
Auld, R. Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001)
Bacon, F. Advancement of Learning (London: 1605)
Bailey, R. ‘Overcoming Veriphobia – Learning to Love Truth Again’ (2001) 49 British Journal of Educational Studies 159–72
Bainham, A. Children: The Modern Law, 2nd edn (Bristol: Jordan Publishing, 1998)
Baker, J. An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th edn (London: Butterworths, 2002)
Bardet-Giraudon, M. ‘The Place of the Expert in the French Legal System’, in J. Spencer, G. Nicholson, R. Flin and R. Bull (eds.), Children's Evidence in Legal Proceedings. An International Perspective (Cambridge: Cambridge Law Faculty, 1990), pp. 68–70
Barnes, B., Bloor, D. and Henry, J. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)
Basten, J. ‘The Court Expert in Civil Trials – A Comparative Appraisal’ (1977) 41 Modern Law Review 174–91
Beardsley, J. ‘Proof of Fact in French Civil Procedure’ (1986) 34 American Journal of Comparative Law 459–86
Becker, S. ‘Child Sexual Abuse Allegations against a Lesbian or Gay Parent in a Custody or Visitation Dispute: Battling the Overt and Insidious Bias of Experts and Judges’ (1996) 74 Denver University Law Review 75–158
Beecher-Monas, E. Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Benn, A. The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1906)
Bentham, J. Rationale of Judicial Evidence (London, 1827)
Bentham, J. Traité des preuves judiciaires (Paris: 1823)
Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. The Social Construction of Reality (London: Allen Lane, 1966)
Bergmann, G. Philosophy of Science (Madison WI: Wisconsin University Press, 1957)
Berkeley, G. Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), ed. R. Woolhouse (London: Penguin, 1988)
Bernstein, D. ‘Expert Witnesses, Adversarial Bias, and the (Partial) Failure of the Daubert Revolution’ (2007) George Mason University Law and Economics Research Paper Series 07–11 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=963461 (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Bertelsen, K. ‘From Specialized Courts to Specialized Juries: Calling For Professional Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1998) 3 Suffolk Journal of Trial and Appellate Advocacy 1
Best, W. Principles of the Law of Evidence and Practice as to Proofs in Courts of Common Law (London: Sweet, 1849)
Best, W. Principles of the Law of Evidence and Practice as to Proofs in Courts of Common Law, 2nd edn (London: Sweet, 1854)
Best, W. A Treatise on Presumptions of Law and Fact with the Theory and Rules of Presumptive or Circumstantial Proof in Criminal Cases (London: Sweet, 1844)
Beuscher, J. ‘The Use of Experts by the Courts’ (1941) 54 Harvard Law Review 1105–27
Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R. Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
Bex, F., Prakken, H., Reed, C. and Walton, D. ‘Towards a Formal Account of Reasoning about Evidence: Argumentation Schemes and Generalizations’ (2003) 11 Artificial Intelligence and Law 125–65
Bex, F. van den Braak, van Oostendorp, S., Prakken, H., Verheij, B. and Vreeswijk, G. ‘Sense-making Software for Crime Investigation: How to Combine Stories and Arguments?’ (2007) 6 Law Probability and Risk 145–68
Bingham, T. ‘Hired Gun Takes a Bullet’ (2005) 5 Building 50
Bishop, M. and Trout, J. Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
Blom-Cooper, L. ‘Experts and Assessors: Past, Present and Future’ (2002) 21 Civil Justice Quarterly 341–456
Blom-Cooper, L. ‘Historical Background’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 1–15.
Blom-Cooper, L. (ed.) Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)
BonJour, L. The Structure of Empirical Knowledge (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1985)
Bonnier, É. Traité théorique et pratique des preuves en droit civil et en droit criminal, 2nd edn (Paris: Durand, 1852)
Bornstein, B. ‘The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?’ (1999) 23 Law and Human Behaviour 75–91
Bourcier, D. and De Bonis, M. Les paradoxes de l'expertise: savoir ou juger? (Paris: Institut Synthélab, 1999)
Bowden, P., Croall, P. and Parker, R. The Woolf Reforms in Practice: Freshfields Assess the Changing Landscape (London: Butterworths, 1999)
Bower, G., Black, J. and Turner, T. ‘Scripts in Memory for Texts’ (1979) 11 Cognitive Psychology 177–220
Boyd, R. ‘On the Current Status of Scientific Realism’ (1983) 19 Erkenntnis 45–90.
Brad Wray, K. ‘Science, Biases, and the Threat of Global Pessimism’ (2001) 68 Philosophy of Science S467–S478
Brewer, S. ‘Scientific Expert Testimony and Intellectual Due Process’ (1998) 103 Yale Law Journal 1535–681
British Trials 1660–1900: The Guide to the Microfiche Edition Containing a Full Bibliographical Listing Together with Nine Indexes (Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1990)
Brophy, J., Bates, P., Brown, L., Cohen, S. and Radcliffe, P. Expert Evidence in Child Protection Litigation – Where Do We Go From Here? (London: The Stationery Office, 1999)
Brubaker, R. The Limits of Rationality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Thought of Max Weber (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984)
Brumfiel, G. ‘Misconduct? It's All Academic…’ (2007) 445 Nature 240–1
Brundage, J. ‘The Calumny Oath and Ethical Ideas of Canonical Advocates’, in P. Landau and J. Müller (eds.), Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law: Monumenta iuris canonici: Subsidia vol. 10 (Vatican City: 1997), pp. 793–805
Brundage, J. ‘The Ethics of the Legal Profession: Mediaeval Canonists and their Clients’ (1973) 33 Jurist 237–48
Bryson, W. Cases Concerning Equity and the Courts of Equity 1550–1660, 2 vols., folios 117 and 118 (London: Selden Society, 2000 and 2001)
Burn, S. Successful Use of Expert Witnesses in Civil Disputes (Crayford: Shaw and Sons, 2005)
Burn, S. and Thompson, B. ‘Single Joint Expert’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 57–75
Burns, R. A Theory of the Trial (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)
Cadiet, L. ‘The New French Code of Civil Procedure (1975)’, in C. van Rhee (ed.), European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), pp. 49–68
Cadiet, L. (ed.) Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004)
Cadiet, L. and Jeuland, E. Droit judiciaire privé, 5th edn (Paris: Litec, 2006)
Cappelletti, M. and Perillo, J. Civil Procedure in Italy (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965)
Carson, D. Professionals and the Courts – A Handbook for Expert Witnesses (Birmingham: Venture Press, 1990)
Carter, F. ‘Court Order Violations, Witness Coaching, and Obstructing Access to Witnesses: An Examination of the Unethical Attorney Conduct that Nearly Derailed the Moussaoui Trial’ (2007) 20 Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics 463–74
‘The Case for Special Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 1155–76
Chase, O. ‘Legal Processes and National Culture’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 1–24
Check, E. and Cyranoski, D. ‘Korean Scandal will have Global Fallout’ (2005) 438 Nature 1056–7
Chesebro, K. ‘Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship’ (1993) 42 American University Law Review 1637–726
Chiarloni, S. ‘Civil Justice and its Paradoxes: An Italian Perspective’, in A. Zuckerman, S. Chiarloni and P. Gottwald, Civil Justice in Crisis: Comparative Perspectives of Civil Procedure (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 263–90
Chiovenda, G. Principii di diritto processuale civile: le azioni, il processo di cognizione, 3rd edn (Naples: Eugenio Jovene, 1965)
Civil Justice Council, Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims (London: 2005)
Clendinnen, J. ‘Ratifying Foundherentism’, in C. de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 73–87
Coady, A. Testimony: A Philosophical Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)
Cohen, J. The Probable and the Provable (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977)
Coke, E. Institutes of the Laws of England (London: 1628, 1642, 1644)
Collingwood, R. ‘On the So-Called Idea of Causation’ (1937–8) 38 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 85–112
Collins, H. ‘Scientific Evidence: A Common Sense Approach Is Needed’ (1996) 4 Expert Evidence 156–58
‘Competing Financial Interests’, www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/competing.html (last accessed 1 August 2008)
‘Conflict of Interest Disclosure’, www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/prep/coi.shtml (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Consett, H. Practice of the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Courts (London: Basset, 1685)
Cooper, J., Bennett, E. and Sukel, H. ‘Complex Scientific Testimony: How Do Jurors Make Decisions?’ (1996) 20 Law and Human Behaviour 379–94
Cooper, P. ‘Training’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 149–57
Corfield, P. Power and the Professions in Britain 1700–1850 (London: Routledge, 1995)
Cory-Pearce, R. ‘The Three Princes of Serendip or the Happy Avoidance of Accidents’, Society of Expert Witnesses, March 1998, www.sew.org.uk/dispatch/three_princes.htm (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Cour de cassation, Le nouveau code de procédure civile: vingt ans après (Paris: La Documentation Française, 1998)
‘Court Work Ban for Clark Doctor’ BBC News, 3 June 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4595839.stm (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Cox, N. ‘The Influence of the Common Law on the Decline of the Ecclesiastical Courts of the Church of England’ (2001) 3 Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/articles/RJLR_3_1_3.pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Craig, P. Administrative Law, 5th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003)
Crawford, C. ‘Legalizing Medicine: Early Modern Legal Systems and the Growth of Medico-legal Knowledge’, in M. Clark and C. Crawford, Legal Medicine in History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 89–116
Cretney, S., Masson, J. and Bailey-Harris, R. Principles of Family Law, 7th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003)
Cross, A. Evidence (London: Butterworth, 1958)
Damaška, M. ‘Epistemology and Legal Regulation of Proof’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 117–30
Damaška, M. Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997)
Damaška, M. ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure’ (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 506–89
Damaška, M. The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1986)
Damaška, M. ‘Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1083–106
Damaška, M. ‘Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 25–39
Damaška, M. ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289–308
David, M. ‘The Correspondence Theory of Truth’, in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2005/entries/truth-correspondence/ (last accessed 14 December 2007)
Davies, G. ‘Court Appointed Experts’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 367–85
Davies, G. ‘Recent Australian Developments: A Response to Peter Heerey’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 396–9
Day, J. and Le Gat, L. Expert Evidence under the CPR: A Compendium of Cases from April 1999 to April 2001 (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2001)
De La Roche-Flavin, B. Arrests notables du parlement de Toulouse, ed. N. Caranove (Toulouse: 1745)
Deichmann, U. and Müller-Hill, B. ‘The Fraud of Abderhalden's Enzymes’ (1998) 393 Nature 109–11
Dennis, I. The Law of Evidence, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2002)
Descartes, R. Discours de la méthode (Paris: 1637)
Devine, D., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Stolle, D. and Studebaker, N. ‘Deliberation Quality: A Preliminary Examination in Criminal Juries’ (2007) 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 273–303
Dickey, A. ‘The Province and Function of Assessors in English Courts’ (1970) 33 Modern Law Review 494–507
Dobbin, S., Gatowski, S., Richardson, J., Ginsburg, G., Merlino, M. and Dahir, V. ‘Applying Daubert: How Well Do Judges Understand Science and Scientific Method?’ (2002) 85 Judicature 244–7
Dror, I. and Charlton, D. ‘Why Experts Make Errors’ (2006) 56 Journal of Forensic Identification 600–16
Dror, I., Charlton, D. and Peron, A. ‘Contextual Information Renders Experts Vulnerable to Making Erroneous Identifications’ (2006) 156 Forensic Science International 74–8
Duxbury, N. ‘Jerome Frank and the Legacy of Legal Realism’ (1991) 18 Journal of Law and Society 175–205
Dworkin, R. Justice in Robes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006)
Dworkin, R. Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1977)
Dwyer, D. ‘Beyond Autonomy: the Role of Dignity in “Biolaw”’ (2003) 23 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 319–31
Dwyer, D. ‘Changing Approaches to Expert Evidence in England and Italy’ (2002) 1 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 2, art. 4, www.bepress.com/ice/vol1/iss2/art4 (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Dwyer, D. ‘Closed Evidence, Reasonable Suspicion and Torture’ (2005) 9 Evidence and Proof 126–31
Dwyer, D. ‘The Duties of Expert Witnesses of Fact and Opinion’ (2003) 7 Evidence and Proof 264–9
Dwyer, D. ‘Expert Evidence in the English Civil Courts, 1550–1800’ (2007) 28 Journal of Legal History 93–118
Dwyer, D. ‘Is a Finding that a Person Deemed Unfit to be Tried “did the act…charged against him” Compatible with Article 6 ECHR?’ (2003) 67 Journal of Criminal Law 307–10
Dwyer, D. ‘Is Man the Rational Animal?’, BA dissertation, University of Southampton (1996)
Dwyer, D. ‘Knowledge, Truth and Justification in Legal Fact Finding’ (2007) 1(4) Reasoner 5–6, www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/jw/TheReasoner/vol1/TheReasoner-1 (4).pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Dwyer, D. ‘Legal Remedies for the Negligent Expert’ (2008) 12 Evidence and Proof 93–115
Dwyer, D. ‘What Does it Mean to be Free? The Concept of Free Proof in the Western European Legal Tradition’ (2005) 3 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 1, art. 6, www.bepress.com/ice/vol3/iss1/art6 (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Ebsworth, E. ‘Accreditation: A Novel Approach’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 17–28
Eco, U. Il nome della rosa, 47th edn (Milan: Tascabili Bompiani, 2001)
‘Editorial’ Counsel November/December 1994
Edmond, G. ‘After Objectivity: Expert Evidence and Procedural Reform’ (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review 131–64
Edmond, G. ‘Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence’ (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 216–51
Edmond, G. (ed.) Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004)
Edmond, G. and Mercer, D. ‘Daubert and the Exclusionary Ethos: The Convergence of Corporate and Judicial Attitudes Towards the Admissibility of Expert Evidence in Tort Litigation’ (2004) 26 Law and Policy 231–57
Edmond, G. and Mercer, D. ‘Experts and Expertise in Legal and Regulatory Settings’, in G. Edmond (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), pp. 1–31
Edmond, G. and Mercer, D. ‘The Invisible Branch: The Authority of Science Studies in Expert Evidence Jurisprudence’, in G. Edmond (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004) pp. 197–291
Edwards, S. ‘Perjury and Perverting the Course of Justice Considered’ [2003] Criminal Law Review 525–40
Eekelaar, J. ‘The Emergence of Children's Rights’ (1986) 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 161–82
Eggleston, R. Evidence, Proof and Probability (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978)
Einstein, A. ‘Physics and Reality’, in S. Bargmann (ed.), Ideas and Opinions of Albert Einstein (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), pp. 290–323
Eisen, A. ‘The Meanings and Confusion of Weberian “Rationality”’ (1978) 29 British Journal of Sociology 57–70
Encinas de Munagorri, R. ‘La communauté scientifique est-elle un ordre juridique?’ [1998] Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 247–83
Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of Energy, Cold Fusion Research (Washington DC: Energy Research Advisory Board, 1999) DOE/S–0073 DE90 005611
Engelhardt, H. and Caplan, A. (eds.), Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987)
Epstein, L. and King, G. ‘The Rules of Inference’ (2002) 69 University of Chicago Law Review 1–133
Erichson, H. ‘Mass Tort Litigation and Inquisitorial Justice’ (1999) 87 Georgetown Law Journal 1983–2024
Erlanger, H. ‘Jury Research in America: Its Past and Future’ (1970) 4 Law and Society Review 345–70
Evans-Pritchard, E. Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937)
Feigenbaum, A. ‘Special Juries: Deterring Spurious Medical Malpractice Litigation in State Courts’ (2003) 24 Cardozo Law Review 1361–420
Feldman, R. ‘Naturalized Epistemology’, in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2006/entries/epistemology-naturalized/ (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Ferrarese, M. ‘An Entrepreneurial Conception of the Law? The American Model Through Italian Eyes’, in D. Nelken (ed.), Comparing Legal Cultures (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1997), pp. 157–81
Feyerabend, P. ‘Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism’, in H. Feigl and G. Maxwell (eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science vol. III (Minneapolis MN: Minnesota University Press, 1962), pp. 28–97
Feyerabend, P. ‘On the “Meaning” of Scientific Terms’ (1964) 61 Journal of Philosophy 497–509
Forbes, T. Surgeons at the Bailey: English Forensic Medicine to 1878 (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1985)
Fordham, M. Judicial Review Handbook, 4th edn (Oxford: Hart, 2004)
Formulary (c. 1630) DRO. Chanter MS
Foucault, M. The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (London: Routledge, 1970)
Frank J. Courts on Trial (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950)
Frank J. Law and the Modern Mind (New York: Tudor, 1930)
Frankel, M. ‘The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1031–59
Freckleton, I., Reddy, P. and Selby, H. Australian Judicial Perspectives on Expert Evidence: An Empirical Study (Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 1999)
Freckleton, I. and Selby, H. Expert Evidence (Sydney: LBC, 1993)
Freckmann, A. and Wegerich, T. The German Legal System (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1999)
Freemon, F. ‘The Origin of the Medical Expert Witness: The Insanity of Edward Oxford’ (2001) 22 Journal of Legal Medicine 349–73
Galanter, M. ‘The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts’ (2004) 1 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 459–570.
Galilei, G. Dialogo Sopra i due massimi sistemi del mondo (Florence: Giovanni Battista Landini, 1632)
Gallanis, T. ‘Legal History with 21st Century Tools: The English Reports on CD-ROM and Bracton on the Web’ (1999) 20 Journal of Legal History 109
Gallanis, T. ‘The Rise of Modern Evidence Law’ (1999) 84 Iowa Law Review 499–560
Geller, M. ‘Wigmorean Analysis and the Survival of Cuneiform’, in W. Twining and I. Hampsher-Monk (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003), pp. 216–30
Gettier, E. ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ (1963) 23 Analysis 121–3
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. and the ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
Gilbert, G. The Law of Evidence (London: 1754)
Gilbert, G. The Law of Evidence, 4th edn, ed. C. Lofft (Dublin: 1795)
Glenn, P. Legal Traditions of the World, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
Golan, T. ‘The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in the English Courtroom’ (1999) 12 Science in Context 7–34
Golan, T. Laws of Men and Laws of Nature: The History of Scientific Expert Testimony in England and America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2004)
Golan, T. ‘Scientific Expert Testimony in Anglo-American Courts, 1782–1923’, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1997
Goldman, A. Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
Goldman, A. Pathways to Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)
Goldman, A. ‘Social Epistemology’, in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2007 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2007/entries/epistemology-social/ (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Goodall, F. ‘The Expert Witness: Partisan with a Conscience’ (1990) 56 Journal of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
Gottwald, P. ‘Simplified Civil Procedure in West Germany’ (1983) 31 American Journal of Comparative Law 687–701
Graham, K. ‘“There'll Always be an England”: The Instrumental Ideology of Evidence’ (1987) 85 Michigan Law Review 1204–34
Grande, E. ‘Italian Criminal Justice: Borrowing and Resistance’ (2000) 48 American Journal of Comparative Law 227–59
Grevling, K. ‘Restrictions on the Right to Silence – Introduction’, in H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005), pp. 1039–56
Gross, S. ‘Expert Evidence’ (1991) 6 Wisconsin Law Review 1113–232
Haack, S. ‘The Benefit of Experience: Response to John Clendinnen’, in C. de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 88–91
Haack, S. ‘Crossing My i's and Dotting some t's: Response to Vern Warker’, in C. de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 105–8
Haack, S. Defending Science – Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism (New York: Prometheus Books, 2003)
Haack, S. Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)
Haack, S. ‘Innocent Realism in a Pluralistic Universe’, in C. de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 233–6
Haack, S. ‘Inquiry and Advocacy, Fallibilism and Finality: Culture and Inference in Science and Law’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 205–14
Haack, S. ‘Law, Literature, and Bosh’, in C. de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 259–62
Haack, S. Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)
Haack, S. ‘Of Chopin and Sycamores: Response to Ryszard Wójcicki’, in C. de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 69–72
Haack, S. ‘Reflections on Relativism: From Momentous Tautology to Seductive Contradiction’, in S. Haack, Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), pp. 149–66
Haack, S. ‘Trial and Error: The Supreme Court's Philosophy of Science’ (2005) 95 American Journal of Public Health S66–S73
Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997)
Hacking, I. The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975)
Hacking, I. ‘Experimentation and Scientific Realism’ (1982) 13 Philosophical Topics 71–87
Hall, J. The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty (1809) (Ann Arbor MI: Scholars’ Facsimiles & Reprints, 2004)
Hammelmann, H. ‘Expert Evidence’ (1947) 11 Modern Law Review 32–9
Hammelmann, H. ‘Rules of Evidence Under the New Italian Civil Codes’ (1947) 29 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 39–46
Hand, L. ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58
Hart, H. The Concept of Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
Hart, H. ‘Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence’ (1954) 70 Law Quarterly Review 37–60
Hart, H. and Honoré, T. Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985)
Harvey, N. and Harries, C. ‘Effects of Judges’ Forecasting on their Later Combination of Forecasts for the Same Outcome’ (2004) 20 International Journal of Forecasting 391–409
Hastie, R. Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)
Hastie, R., Schkade, D. and Payne, J. ‘A Study of Juror and Jury Judgments in Civil Cases: Deciding Liability for Punitive Damages’ (1998) 22 Law and Human Behaviour 287–314
Head, A. ‘The Role of an Expert Defined’ (1998) 9 Dispatches www.sew.org.uk/dispatch/role.htm (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Heerey, P. ‘Recent Australian Developments’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 386–95
Helmholz, R. Canon Law and the Law of England (London: Hambledon Press, 1987)
Helmholz, R. The Ius Commune in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
Helmholz, R. The Oxford History of the Laws of England, vol. I: The Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction from 597 to the 1640s (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
Hempel, C. Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: Free Press, 1965)
Hempel, C. ‘The Irrelevance of the Concept of Truth for the Critical Appraisal of Scientific Theories’, in R. Jeffrey (ed.), Selected Philosophical Essays [by] Carl G. Hempel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), pp. 75–84
Ho, H. ‘The Epistemic Basis of Legal Fact-finding’ (2007) 1(2) Reasoner 5–6 www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/jw/TheReasoner/vol1/TheReasoner-1(2). pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Ho, H. A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
Hobsbawm, E. and Ranger, T. (eds.) The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)
Hodgkinson, T. and James, M. Expert Evidence: Law and Practice (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007)
Hohfeld, W. Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied to Judicial Reasoning (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1923)
Holmes, A. ‘Moore's Appeal to Common Sense’ (1961) 58 Journal of Philosophy 197–207
Howard, M. ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 98–105
Howlin, N. ‘Special Juries: A Solution to the Expert Witness’ (2004) 12 Irish Student Law Review 19–47
Huber, P. Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (New York: Basic Books, 1991)
Hume, D. Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), ed. P. Nidditch, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)
Hume, D. A Treatise of Human Nature (1740), ed. P. Nidditch, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978)
Hutter, M. and Teubner, G. ‘Homo juridicus and Homo oeconomicus: Communicate Fictions’, in T. Baums, K. Hopt and N. Horn (eds.), Corporations, Capital Markets and Business in the Law (The Hague: Kluwer, 2000), p. 569
Jackson, J. ‘Analysing the New Evidence Scholarship: Towards a New Conception of the Law of Evidence’ (1996) 16 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 309–28
Jackson, J. ‘The Effect of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Convergence, Divergence or Realignment?’ (2005) 68 Modern Law Review 737–64
Jackson, J. ‘The Effect of Legal Culture and Proof in Decisions to Prosecute’ (2004) 3 Law Probability and Risk 109–31
Jackson, J. ‘Playing the Culture Card in Cross-Jurisdictional Transplants’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 51–67
Jackson, J. ‘The Ultimate Issue Rule: One Rule Too Many’ [1984] Criminal Law Review 75
Jackson, J. and Doran, S. ‘Judge and Jury: Towards a New Division of Labour in Criminal Trials’ 60 Modern Law Review 759–78
Jackson, R. ‘The Incidence of Jury Trial during the Past Century’ (1937) 1 Modern Law Review 132–44
Jacob, J. Civil Justice in the Age of Human Rights (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007)
Jacob, J. The Fabric of English Civil Justice (London: Stevens, 1987)
Jacob, J. ‘Meetings of Experts Without Prejudice’ (1986) 5 Civil Justice Quarterly 279–80
Jacob, R. ‘Court Appointed Experts v Party Experts: Which is Better?’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 400–7
Jacquin, A. ‘L'impartialité objective de l'expert judiciaire et sa récusation’ 31 Gazette du Palais (1 February 2003) 3–8
Jasanoff, S. Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)
Jasanoff, S. ‘What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science’ (1992) 32 Jurimetrics 345–59
Jeuland, E. ‘Expertise’, in L. Cadiet (ed.), Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), pp. 503–10
Johnston, P. ‘Court Appointed Scientific Expert Witnesses: Unfettering Expertise’ (1987) 2 Berkeley Technology Law Journal www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol2/johnston.pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Jolowicz, J. ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure’ (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 281–95
Jolowicz, J. On Civil Procedure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)
Jones, C. Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine, and the Practice of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
Judicature Commission, First Report of the Commissioners (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1869)
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P. and Tversky, A. (eds.) Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)
Kalberg, S. ‘Max Weber's Types of Rationality’ (1980) 85 American Journal of Sociology 1145
Kant, I. Critique of Practical Reason (1788), trans. T. Abbott (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1898)
Kaplan, B., von Mehren, A. and Schaefer, R. ‘Phases of German Civil Procedure I’ (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review 1193–268
Keane, A. and Seabrooke, S. (eds.) Evidence, 6th edn (Oxford: Blackstone, 2001)
King, M. ‘An Autopoietic Approach to the Problems Presented by Parental Alienation Syndrome’ (2002) 13 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 609–35
King, M. and Kaganas, F. ‘The Risks and Dangers of Experts in Court’ (1998) 1 Current Legal Issues 221–42
King, M. and Thornhill, C. ‘Will the Real Niklas Luhmann Stand Up, Please? A Reply to John Mingers’ (2003) 51 Sociological Review 276–85
Kitcher, P. ‘1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences’ (1984) 93 Philosophical Review 335–73
Kitcher, P. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)
Kitcher, P. ‘Implications of Incommensurability’ (1982) 2 Philosophy of Science Association 689–703
Kitcher, P. ‘Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy’ (2001) 110 Philosophical Review 151–97
Kitcher, P. ‘Theories, Theorists and Theoretical Change’ (1978) 87 Philosophical Review 519–47
Kitcher, P. ‘Truth or Consequences?’ (1998) 72 Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 49–63
Kötz, H. ‘Civil Litigation and Public Interest’ (1982) 1 Civil Justice Quarterly 237
Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)
Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970)
Lacey, N. A Life of H. L. A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
Lakatos, I. ‘Science and Pseudoscience’ lecture, broadcast 30 June 1973 as Programme 11 of The Open University Arts Course A303, ‘Problems of Philosophy', www.lse.ac.uk/collections/lakatos/scienceAndPseudoscience.htm (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Landsman, S. ‘Of Witches, Madmen, and Products Liability: An Historical Survey of the Use of Expert Testimony’ (1995) 13 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 131–57
Landsman, S. ‘One Hundred Years of Rectitude: Medical Witnesses at the Old Bailey, 1717–1817’ (1998) 16 Law and History Review 445–94
Landsman, S. ‘The Rise of the Contentious Spirit: Adversary Procedure in Eighteenth Century England’ (1990) 75 Cornell Law Review 497–609
Langbein, J. ‘Cultural Chauvinism in Comparative Law’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 41–50.
Langbein, J. ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823–66
Langbein, J. The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
Langbein, J. ‘Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 1–136
Langbein, J. Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977)
Langbein, J. ‘Trashing the German Advantage’ (1988) 82 Northwestern University Law Review 763–84
Laudan, L. ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’ (1981) 48 Philosophy of Science 19–49
Laudan, L. Truth, Error and Criminal Law – An Essay in Legal Epistemology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Law Reform Committee England and Wales, Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence, 17th Report, Cmnd 4489 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1970)
Leclerc, O. Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l’étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005)
Leclerc, O. ‘Les réformes du droit de l'expertise’ (2006) 71 Experts 12
Legrand, P. ‘European Legal Systems are not Converging’ (1996) 45 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 52–81
Legrand, P. ‘The Impossibility of Legal Transplants’ (1997) 4 Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 111–24
Leibniz, G. Monadology (1714), trans. R. Latta (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1898)
Lempert, R. ‘Civil Juries and Complex Cases: Let's Not Rush to Judgment’ (1981) 80 Michigan Law Review 68–132
Lempert, R. ‘The New Evidence Scholarship: Analyzing the Process of Proof’ (1986) 66 Boston University Law Review 439–77
Lennon, T. and Dea, S. ‘Continental Rationalism’, in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2007 Edition) http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2007/entries/continental-rationalism/ (last accessed 14 December 2007)
Leslie, J. ‘From Bear Garden to Swan Lake’ Counsel (August 2005) 22–3
Leucari, V. ‘Analysis of Complex Patterns of Evidence in Legal Cases: Wigmore Charts v Bayesian Networks’ (2005), www.evidencescience.org/content/leucariA1.pdf (last accessed 14 December 2007)
Levy, M. and Salvadori, M. Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail (New York: Norton, 1992)
Lobban, M. ‘The Strange Life of the English Civil Jury, 1837–1914’, in J. Cairns and G. McLeod (eds.), The Dearest Birthright of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 173–215
Locke, J. Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), ed. J. Yolton, 3rd edn (London: Dent, 1993)
Losee, J. Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)
Luhmann, N. Differentiation of Society, trans. S. Holmes and C. Larmore (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)
Luhmann, N. ‘European Rationality’, in G. Robinson and J. Rundell (eds.), Rethinking Imagination: Culture and Creativity (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 65–83
Luhmann, N. Law as a Social System (1993), trans. K. Ziegert (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
Luhmann, N. Social Systems (1984), trans. J. Bednarz Jr (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995)
Lukes, S. ‘Relativism in its Place’, in M. Hollis and S. Lukes (eds.), Rationality and Relativism (Oxford: Blackwell, 1982), pp. 261–305
McAuley, F. ‘Canon Law and the End of the Ordeal’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 473–513
McConnell, A. ‘Risk and Responsibility: Dealing with Science and Uncertainty in Toxic Torts’, Doctor of Laws thesis, European University Institute, 2000
McCormick, C. Handbook on the Law of Evidence (St Paul MN: West, 1954)
MacCormick, N. Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
MacCormick, N. ‘Norms, Institutions and Institutional Facts’ (1998) 17 Law and Philosophy 301–45
Mackay, R. and Colman, A. ‘Equivocal Rulings on Expert Psychological and Psychiatric Evidence: Turning a Muddle into a Nonsense’ [1996] Criminal Law Review 88–95
Macnair, M. The Law of Proof in Early Modern Equity (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1999)
McPherson, K. ‘One Expert's Experience’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 159–80
Macpherson, W. The New Procedure of the Civil Courts of British India, 5th edn (London: Lepage & Co., 1871)
Maddox, J., Randi, J. and Stewart, W. ‘“High-Dilution” Experiments a Delusion’ (1998) 334(6180) Nature 287
Magendie, J.-C., Célérité et qualité de la justice: la gestion du temps dans le proces. Rapport au Garde des Sceaux, ministre de la Justice (Paris: La Documentation française, 2004)
Malek, H. (ed.) Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005)
Margot, P. ‘The Role of the Forensic Scientist in an Inquisitorial System of Justice’ (1998) 38 Science and Justice 71–3
Marsden, G. (ed.) Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty (1547–1602), 2 vols., folios 6 and 11 (London: Selden Society, 1892 and 1897)
Martin de Agar, J. ‘Giudice e perito’, paper presented at the 29th Congresso Nazionale di Diritto Canonico, Vatican City, 1998
Matson, J. Effective Expert Witnessing, 3rd edn (Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1999)
Maturana, H. and Varela, F. Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980)
Meadow, R. (ed.) The ABC of Child Abuse, 3rd edn (London: BMJ Publishing, 1997)
Meininger, M.-C. (ed.) ‘L'administrateur et l'expert’ (2002) 103 Revue Française d'Administration Publique, 365–527
Menashe, D. and Shamash, M. ‘The Narrative Fallacy’ (2005) 3 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 1, art. 3, www.bepress.com/ice/vol3/iss1/art3 (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Menochius, J. Tractatus de praesumptionibus, conjecturis, signis et indiciis (Venice: 1590)
Merton, R. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973)
Mill, J. System of Logic (London: 1843)
Millar, R. (ed.), A History of Continental Civil Procedure (London: J. Murray, 1928)
Miner, J. ‘The Jury Problem’ (1946) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1–15
Mitnick, J. ‘From Neighbor-Witness to Judge of Proofs: The Transformation of the English Civil Juror’ (1988) 32 American Journal of Legal History 201–35
‘MMR Doctor “To Face GMC Charges”’ BBC News, 12 June 2006 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5070670.stm (last accessed 1 August 2008)
‘MMR Scare Doctor “Paid Children”’, BBC News, 16 July 2007, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6289166.stm (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Mnookin, J. ‘Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Expertise’ (2001) 87 Virginia Law Review 1723–845
Mnookin, R. ‘Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy’ (1975) 39 Law and Contemporary Problems 226–93
Mogck, D. ‘Are We There Yet? Refining the Test for Expert Testimony Through Daubert, Kumho Tire and Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 702’ (2000) 33 Connecticut Law Review 303–36
Mohr, J. Doctors and the Law: Medical Jurisprudence in Nineteenth-Century America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)
Moore, G. ‘A Defence of Common Sense’, in J. Muirhead (ed.), Contemporary British Philosophy, 2nd series (London: Allen and Unwin, 1924), pp. 191–223
Moss, S. ‘Opinion for Sale: Confessions of an Expert Witness’ (2003) Legal Affairs March/April 2003
Murphy, P. Evidence, 9th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
Nelken, D. ‘A Just Measure of Science?’ in M. Freeman and H. Reece (eds.), Science in Court (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1988), pp. 11–36
Nelken, D. ‘Law and Disorder: A Letter from Italy’ (1992) 8 Socio-Legal Newsletter 6
Nelken, D. ‘Law and Knowledge / Law as Knowledge’ (2006) 15 Social Legal Studies 570–3
Nelken, D. ‘The Truth about Law's Truth’, in A. Febbrajo and D. Nelken, European Yearbook in the Sociology of Law 1993 (Milan: Giuffrè, 1994), pp. 87–160
Nelken, D. and Feest, J. (eds.) Adapting Legal Cultures (Oxford: Hart, 2001)
Ngwasiri, C. ‘Some Problems of Expertise in French Civil Procedure’ (1989) 8 Civil Justice Quarterly 168–83
Nisbett, R. and Ross, L. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980)
Nörr, K. ‘Procedure in Mercantile Matters: Some Comparative Aspects’, in V. Piergiovanni (ed.), The Courts and the Development of Commercial Law (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1987), pp. 195–201
O'Day, R. The Professions in Early Modern England 1450–1800 (Harlow: Longman, 2000)
O'Reilly, J. and Buenger, C. Toxic Torts Practice Guide, 2nd edn (Eagan MN: West, 2004)
Oberhammer, P. and Domej, T. ‘Germany, Switzerland and Austria (ca. 1800–2005)’, in C. van Rhee (ed.), European Traditions in Civil Procedure (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2005), pp. 103–28
Oddie, C. Science and the Administration of Justice (London: Justice, 1991)
Odgers, W. ‘Changes in Procedure and the Law of Evidence’, in A Century of Law Reform (London: Macmillan, 1901), pp. 203–40
Oh, P. ‘The Proper Test for Assessing the Admissibility of Nonscientific Expert Testimony Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702’ (1997) 45 Cleveland State Law Review 437–67
Oldham, J. ‘The History of the Special (Struck) Jury in the United States’ (1998) 6 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 623–75
Oldham, J. ‘Jury Research in the English Reports in CD-ROM’, in J. Cairns and G. McLeod (eds.), The Dearest Birthright of the People of England: The Jury in the History of the Common Law (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 131–53
Oldham, J. The Mansfield Manuscripts and the Growth of English Law in the Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill NC: North Carolina University Press, 1992)
Oldham, J. ‘The Origins of the Special Jury’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 137–221
Palazzolo, G. Prova legale e pena: la crisi del sistema tra evo medio e moderno (Naples: Jovene, 1979)
Palmer, A. Proof and the Preparation of Trials (Sydney: Lawbook, 2003)
Paterson, J. ‘Trans-Science, Trans-Law and Proceduralisation’ (2003) 12 Social and Legal Studies 523–43.
Paterson, J. and Teubner, G. ‘Changing Maps: Empirical Legal Autopoiesis’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies 451–86
Pattenden, R. ‘Litigation Privilege and Expert Opinion Evidence’ (2000) 4 Evidence and Proof 213–45
Peysner, J. ‘Controlling Costs’ (2003) 153 (7090) New Law Journal 1147–8
Phillips, S. A Treatise on the Law of Evidence, 2nd edn (London: Strahan, 1815)
Phipson, S. The Law of Evidence, 1st edn (London: Stevens, 1892)
Plous, S. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making (New York: McGraw Hill, 1993)
Popper, K. The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), trans. K. Popper (London: Hutchinson, 1959)
Posner, R. Law and Legal Theory in England and America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
Posner, R. ‘Practice and Potential of the Advisory Jury’ (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 1363–81
Precedent Book (c. 1575) Norfolk and Norwich Record Office PCD/2/3
Prichard, J. and Yale, D. (eds.), Hale and Fleetwood on Admiralty Jurisdiction, folio 108 (London: Selden Society, 1992)
Porter, R. England in the Eighteenth Century, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990)
Pundik, A. ‘Statistical Evidence: An Investigation of its Nature and its Usage in the Criminal Context’ (2006) Social Science Research Network http://ssrn.com/abstract=878402 (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Quine, W. ‘On Empirically Equivalent Systems of the World’ (1975) 9 Erkenntnis 313–28
Rassat, M.-L. ‘Forensic Expertise and the Law of Evidence in France’, in J. Nijboer, C. Callen and N. Kwak (eds.), Forensic Expertise and the Law of Evidence (Amsterdam: Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1993), pp. 53–62
Redmayne, M. Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
Reed, C. and Rowe, G. ‘Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation’ (2005) 19 Argumentation 267–86
Resnik, J. ‘Changing Practices, Changing Rules: Judicial and Congressional Rule Making on Civil Juries, Civil Justice and Civil Judging’ (1997) 49 Alabama Law Review 133–219
Resnik, J. ‘Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III’ (2000) 113 Harvard Law Review 924–1037
Rheinstein, M. and Shils, E. (eds.) Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1954)
Roberts, P. ‘Rethinking the Law of Evidence: A Twenty-First Century Agenda for Teaching and Research’, in P. Roberts and M. Redmayne, Innovations in Evidence and Proof: Integrating Theory, Research and Teaching (Oxford: Hart, 2007), pp. 19–63
Roberts, P. ‘Tyres with a “Y”: An English Perspective on Kumho Tire and its Implications for the Admissibility of Expert Evidence’ (1999) 1 International Commentary on Evidence iss. 2, art. 5, www.bepress.com/ice/vol1/iss2/art5 (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A. Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
Rock, P. ‘Witnesses and Space in a Crown Court’ (2001) 31 British Journal of Criminology 266–79
Rodes, R. ‘The Canon Law as a Legal System – Function, Obligation, and Sanction’ (1964) 9 Natural Law Forum 45–94
Rorty, R. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970)
Roscoe, E. The High Court of Admiralty: The Last Phase (London: Kelly Law Book, 1927)
Rose, N. and Valverde, M. ‘Governed by Law?’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies 541–53
Rosenthal, R. ‘Interpersonal Expectations: Effects of the Experimenter's Hypothesis’, in R. Rosenthal and R. Rosnow (eds.), Artifact in Behavioral Research (New York: Academic Press, 1969), pp. 181–277
Rowe, G. and Reed, C. ‘Translating Wigmore Diagrams’, in Proceedings of the First International Conference on Computational Models of Argument (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006), pp. 171–82
Royal Statistical Society ‘Royal Statistical Society Concerned by Issues Raised in Sally Clark Case’, 23 October 2001, www.rss.org.uk/PDF/RSS%20Statement%20regarding%20statistical%20issues%20in%20the%20Sally%20Clark%20 case,%20October%2023rd%202001.pdf (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Rubin, A. ‘Trial by Jury in Complex Civil Cases: Voice of Liberty or Verdict of Confusion?’ (1982) 462 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 87–103
Ruddock, A. ‘The Trinity House at Deptford in the Sixteenth Century’ (1950) 65 English Historical Review 458–76
Russell, B. History of Western Philosophy, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 1961)
Sales, B. and Shuman, D. Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2005)
Samuels, A. ‘A Unified Civil Court’ (2006) 25 Civil Justice Quarterly 250–60
Schiller, F. ‘Scientific Discovery and Logical Proof’, in C. Singer (ed.), Studies in the History and Method of Science, vol. I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1917), pp. 235–89
Schlick, M. ‘Positivismus und Realismus’ (1932) 3 Erkenntnis 1–31
Schmitt, F. (ed.) Socializing Epistemology: The Social Dimensions of Knowledge (Lanham MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1994)
Schum, D. ‘Evidence and Inference About Past Events: An Overview of Six Case Studies’, in W. Twining and I. Hampsher-Monk (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003), pp. 9–62
Schum, D. Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning (London: John Wiley, 1994)
Schum, D. ‘A Reply to the “Schum Challenge” at UCL’, 6 September 2005, www.evidence-science.org/content/D.%20Schum%20Reply.doc (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Sclater, S. and Piper, C. ‘Social Exclusion and the Welfare of the Child’ (2001) 28 Journal of Law and Society 409–29
Scott, I. ‘Immunity from Suit of Expert Witnesses’ (1998) 17 Civil Justice Quarterly 349–53
Searle, J. Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969)
Senior, W. Doctors’ Commons and the Old Court of Admiralty (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1922)
Sériaux, A. ‘Pouvoir scientifique, savoir juridique’ (1991) 13 Droits 61–6
Shapin, S. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994)
Shapiro, B. ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ and ‘Probable Cause’: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence (Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1991)
Shapiro, B. A Culture of Fact: England 1550–1720 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000)
Simpson, J. and Weiner, E. (eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
Solomon, M. ‘Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning’ (1992) 59 Philosophy of Science 439–55
Solomon, M. Social Empiricism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2001)
Soothill, K. ‘Perjury and False Statements: A Criminal Profile of Persons Convicted 1979– 2001’ [2004] Criminal Law Review 926–35.
Spencer, B. ‘Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts’ (2007) 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 305–29
Spencer, J. ‘Court Experts and Expert Witnesses: Have We a Lesson to Learn from the French?’ (1992) 45 Current Legal Problems 213–36
Spencer, J. ‘Inscrutable Verdicts, the Duty to Give Reasons and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2001) 1 Archbold News 5–8
Spencer, J. ‘The Neutral Expert: An Implausible Bogey’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 106–10
Spencer, J. and Flin, J. The Evidence of Children – The Law and the Psychology, 2nd edn (London: Blackstone, 1993)
Spinoza, B. Ethics (1677), trans. A. Boyle, ed. G. Parkinson (London: Dent, 1993)
Squibb, G. Doctors’ Commons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977)
Starkie, T. A Practical Treatise on the Law of Evidence and Digest of Proofs in Civil and Criminal Proceedings (London: Clarke, 1824)
Steckley, G. ‘Collisions, Prohibitions, and the Admiralty Court in Seventeenth-Century London’ (2003) 21 Law and History Review 41–67
Steckley, G. ‘Merchants and the Admiralty Court During the English Revolution’ (1978) 22 American Journal of Legal History 137–75
Stein, A. Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
Stein, A. Stephen, J. A General View of the Criminal Law of England (London: McMillan, 1863)
Stein, A. The Principles of Judicial Evidence, Being an Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872) (Calcutta: Thacker Spink & Co., 1872)
Steup, M. ‘Epistemology’, in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition), http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2006/entries/epistemology/ (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Stich, S. ‘Could Man be an Irrational Animal?’ (1985) 64 Synthèse 115–35
Strier, F. ‘The Educated Jury: A Proposal for Complex Litigation’ (1997) 47 DePaul Law Review 49–83
Sunderland, E. ‘The Inefficiency of the American Jury’ (1915) 13 Michigan Law Review 302–16
Sward, E. The Decline of the Civil Jury (Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2001)
Taleb, N. The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable (London: Penguin, 2007)
Tapper, C. Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
Taruffo, M. La prova dei fatti giuridici (Milan: Giuffrè, 1992)
Taruffo, M. ‘Senso comune, esperienza e scienza nel ragionamento del giudice’, in Sui confini: scritti sulla giustizia civile (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2002), pp. 121–55
Taylor, J. A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (London: Maxwell and Sweet, 1848)
Teubner, G. ‘Altera pars audiatur: Law in a Collision of Discourses’, in R. Rawlings (ed.), Law, Society and Economy: Centenary Essays for the London School of Economics and Political Science 1895–1995 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 149–76
Teubner, G. ‘How the Law Thinks: Toward A Constructivist Epistemology of Law’ (1989) 23 Law and Society Review 727–58
Teubner, G. Law as an Autopoietic System (Blackwell: Oxford, 1993)
Teubner, G. (ed) Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988)
Thayer, J. A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1898)
Thayer, J. Select Cases on Evidence at the Common Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge MA: Charles W. Fever, 1900)
Tillers, P. ‘The Authority of History for the Modern Law of Proof and Evidence’ Blog Tillers on Evidence and Inference, 4 November 2003 http://tillerstillers.blogspot.com/2003/11/authority-of-history-for-modern-law-of.htm (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Tillers, P. ‘Prejudice, Politics and Proof’ (1988) 86 Michigan Law Review 768–75
Timmerbeil, S. ‘The Role of Expert Witnesses in German and US Civil Litigation’ (2003) 9 Annual Survey of International and Comparative Law 163–87
Toulmin, S. The Uses of Argument (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958)
Tufte, E. Beautiful Evidence (Cheshire CT: Graphics Press, 2006)
Turner, R. ‘A New Approach to Civil Litigation’, paper given at the Royal Courts of Justice, 24 June 2002
Twining, W. ‘Alternative to What? Theories of Litigation, Procedure and Dispute Settlement in Anglo-American Jurisprudence: Some Neglected Classics’ (1993) 56 Modern Law Review 380–92
Twining, W. ‘Argumentation, Stories and Generalizations: A Comment’ (2007) 6 Law Probability and Risk 169–85
Twining, W. ‘Civilians Don't Try: A Comment on Mirjan Damaška's “Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited”’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 69–78
Twining, W. ‘Evidence and Legal Theory’ (1984) 47 Modern Law Review 261–83
Twining, W. ‘Freedom of Proof and the Reform of Criminal Evidence’ (1997) 31 Israel Law Review 439–63
Twining, W. ‘Hot Air in the Redwoods, A Sequel to the Wind in the Willows’ (1988) 86 Michigan Law Review 1523–47
Twining, W. Karl Llewellyn and the Realist Movement (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973)
Twining, W. ‘Narrative and Generalizations in Argumentation about Questions of Fact’ (1999) 40 South Texas Law Review 351–65
Twining, W. ‘The Ratio decidendi of the Parable of the Prodigal Son’, in K. O'Donovan and G. Rubin (eds.), Human Rights and Legal History: Essays in Honour of Brian Simpson (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 149–71
Twining, W. ‘The Rationalist Tradition of Evidence Scholarship’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 35–98
Twining, W. Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
Twining, W. ‘Social Science and Diffusion of Law’ (2005) 32 Journal of Law and Society 203–40
Twining, W. ‘Some Scepticism About Some Scepticisms’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 99–164
Twining, W. ‘Taking Facts Seriously’, in Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 14–34
Twining, W. Theories of Evidence: Bentham and Wigmore (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1985)
Twining, W. and Hampsher-Monk, I. (eds.), Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues (Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2003)
Twining, W. and Twining, P. ‘Bentham on Torture’ (1973) 24 Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly 305–56
Ubertis, G. Argomenti di procedura penale (Milan: Giuffrè, 2002)
van Cleve, G. ‘Somerset's Case and its Antecedents in Imperial Perspective’ (2006) 24 Law and History Review 601–46
van Kampen, P. Expert Evidence Compared: Rules and Practices in the Dutch and American Criminal Justice System (Antwerp: Intersentia Rechtswetenschappen, 1998)
van Krieken, R. ‘The “Best Interests of the Child" and Parental Separation: On the “Civilizing of Parents”’ (2005) 68 Modern Law Review 25–48
Venn, J. Principles of Inductive Logic, 2nd edn (New York: Chelsea Publishing, 1907)
Vidmar, N. and Schuller, R. ‘Juries and Expert Evidence: Social Framework Testimony’ (1989) 52 Law and Contemporary Problems 133–76
Walker, V. ‘It's Time to Cross the t's and Dot the i's’, in C. de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack: A Lady of Distinctions – The Philosopher Responds to Her Critics (Amherst NY: Prometheus, 2007), pp. 92–104
Waller, Lord Justice (Sir Mark), Scott, I., Brooke, Sir H. et al. (eds.) Civil Procedure, 2 vols. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007) (The White Book)
Walton, D. Legal Argumentation and Evidence (University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002)
Walton, D. ‘Rules for Reasoning from Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge’ (2006) 34 Philosophia 355–76
Ward, T. ‘Experts, Juries and Witch-Hunts: From Fitzjames Stephen to Angela Cannings’ (2004) 31 Journal of Law and Society 369–86
Ward, T. ‘Observers, Advisers, or Authorities? Experts, Juries and Criminal Responsibility in Historical Perspective’ (2001) 12 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 105–22
Watson, A. Legal Transplants, 2nd edn (Athens GA: Georgia University Press, 1993)
Watson, A. ‘Legal Transplants and European Private Law’ (2000) 4 Electronic Journal of Comparative Law www.ejcl.org/44/art44-2.html (last accessed 1 August 2008)
Watson, J. The Double Helix (New York: Norton, 1967)
Weber, M. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922)
Weinstein, J. and Hershenov, E. ‘The Effect of Equity on Mass Tort Law’ [1991] University of Illinois Law Review 269–327
Wigmore, J. The Science of Judicial Proof: As Given by Logic, Psychology and General Experience and Illustrated in Judicial Trials, 3rd edn (Boston: Little, Brown, 1937)
Wigmore, J. A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Chadbourn (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981)
Wigmore, J. A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law (1923), rev. edn Tiller (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983)
Williams, B. ‘Ethics’, in A. Grayling (ed.), Philosophy: A Guide Through the Subject, 2nd edn, vol. I (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), pp. 545–83
Williamson, T. Knowledge and its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000)
Wills, W. An Essay on the Principles of Circumstantial Evidence (London: 1838)
Winch, P. The Idea of a Social Science (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958).
Winch, P. ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’ (1964) 1(14) American Philosophical Quarterly 307–24
Wittgenstein, L. Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1953).
Woolf, Lord Access to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996)
Woolf, Lord Access to Justice: Interim Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1995)
Woolf, Lord ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?’ (2001) 9 Medical Law Review 1–16
Woolf, Lord, Jowell, J. and Le Sueur, A. (eds.), De Smith, Woolf and Jowell's Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 5th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1995)
Wright, R. ‘Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof: Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifying the Concepts’ (1988) 73 Iowa Law Review 1001–77
Wright, R. ‘Once More into the Bramble Bush: Duty, Causal Contribution and the extent of Legal Responsibility’ (2001) 54 Vanderbilt Law Review 1071–132
Yale, D. (ed.) Lord Nottingham's Chancery Cases, 2 vols., folios 73 and 79 (London: Selden Society, 1954 and 1961)
Yates, C. ‘Doctoring the Evidence: Medical Evidence in Child Custody Cases in Australia’ (1986) 5 Civil Justice Quarterly 144
Zahle, H. ‘William Twining and Iain Hampsher-Monk (eds.) Evidence and Inference in History and Law: Interdisciplinary Dialogues Illinois: Northwestern UP (2003)’ (2004) 8 Evidence and Proof 211–13
Zeisel, H. and Diamond, S. ‘“Convincing Empirical Evidence” on the Six Member Jury’ (1974) 41 University of Chicago Law Review 281–95
Ziegert, K. ‘The Thick Description of Law: An Introduction to Niklas Luhmann's Theory of Operatively Closed Systems’, in R. Banakar and M. Travers (eds.), An Introduction to Law and Social Theory (Oxford: Hart, 2002), pp. 55–75
Zuckerman, A. Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006)
Zuckerman, A. ‘Coercion and the Judicial Ascertainment of Truth’ (1989) 23 Israel Law Review 357–74
Zuckerman, A. ‘Disclosure of Expert Reports’ (2005) 24 Civil Justice Quarterly 293–7
Zuckerman, A. ‘Miscarriage of Justice – A Root Treatment’ [1992] Criminal Law Review 323–45