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


É. Bonnier, Traité théorique et pratique des preuves en droit civil et en droit criminal, 2nd edn (Paris: Durand, 1852)
‘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)
‘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)
‘Cultural Chauvinism in Comparative Law’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 41–50
‘Editorial’ Counsel November/December 1994
‘Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence’ (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 216–51
‘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)
‘Practice and Potential of the Advisory Jury’ (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 1363–81
‘Practice and Potential of the Advisory Jury’ (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 1363–81
‘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
‘The Case for Special Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 1155–76
‘The Case for Special Juries in Complex Civil Litigation’ (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 1155–76
A. Bainham, Children: The Modern Law, 2nd edn (Bristol: Jordan Publishing, 1998), p. 35
A. Benn, The History of English Rationalism in the Nineteenth Century (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1906), p. 1
A. Coady, Testimony: a Philosophical Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)
A. Coady, Testimony: a Philosophical Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992)
A. Cross, Evidence (London: Butterworth, 1958)
A. Dickey, ‘The Province and Function of Assessors in English Courts’ 33 Modern Law Review (1970) 494–507.
A. Einstein, ‘Physics and Reality’, in S. Bargmann (ed.), Ideas and Opinions of Albert Einstein (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), p. 295
A. Einstein, ‘Physics and Reality’, in S. Bargmann (ed.), Ideas and Opinions of Albert Einstein (New York: Crown Publishers, 1954), pp. 290–323
A. Eisen, ‘The Meanings and Confusion of Weberian “Rationality”’ (1978) 29 British Journal of Sociology 57–70
A. Feigenbaum, ‘Special Juries: Deterring Spurious Medical Malpractice Litigation in State Courts’ (2003) 24 Cardozo Law Review 1361–420
A. Feigenbaum, ‘Special Juries: Deterring Spurious Medical Malpractice Litigation in State Courts’ (2003) 24 Cardozo Law Review 1361–420.
A. Freckmann and T. Wegerich, The German Legal System (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1999), p. 142
A. Goldman, Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 310.
A. Goldman, Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 7
A. Goldman, Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 221–71
A. Head, ‘The Role of an Expert Defined’ (1998) 9 Dispatches www.sew.org.uk/dispatch/role.htm (last accessed 14 December 2007).
A. Holmes, ‘Moore's Appeal to Common Sense’ (1961) 58 Journal of Philosophy 197–207
A. Jacquin, ‘L'impartialité objective de l'expert judiciaire et sa récusation’ 31 Gazette du Palais (1 February 2003) 3–8, 4
A. Keane and S. Seabrooke (eds.), Evidence, 6th edn (Oxford: Blackstone, 2001), p. 206
A. Palmer, Proof and the Preparation of Trials (Sydney: Lawbook, 2003)
A. Pundik, ‘Statistical Evidence: An Investigation of its Nature and its Usage in the Criminal Context’ (2006) Social Science Research Network
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
A. Ruddock, ‘The Trinity House at Deptford in the Sixteenth Century’ (1950) 65 English Historical Review 458–76, at 464
A. Sériaux, ‘Pouvoir scientifique, savoir juridique’ (1991) 13 Droits 61–6
A. Samuels, ‘A Unified Civil Court’ (2006) 25 Civil Justice Quarterly 250–60.
A. Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
A. Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)
A. Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 12
A. Stein, Foundations of Evidence Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
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)
A. Watson, Legal Transplants, 2nd edn (Athens GA: Georgia University Press, 1993)
A. Zuckerman, ‘Coercion and the Judicial Ascertainment of Truth’ (1989) 23 Israel Law Review 357–74, 363–9
A. Zuckerman, ‘Disclosure of Expert Reports’ (2005) 24 Civil Justice Quarterly 293–7.
A. Zuckerman, ‘Miscarriage of Justice – A Root Treatment’ [1992] Criminal Law Review 323–45
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell 2006)
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006)
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006), p. 7
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006), p. 84.
A. Zuckerman, Civil Procedure: Principles of Practice, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2006), pp. 27–9
Academy of Experts, Code of Guidance for Experts and Those Instructing Them, 2nd edn (London: Academy of Experts, 2001)
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)
B. Barnes, D. Bloor and J. Henry, Scientific Knowledge: a Sociological Analysis (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996)
B. Bornstein, ‘The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?’ (1999) 23 Law and Human Behaviour 75–91
B. De La Roche-Flavin, Arrests notables du parlement de Toulouse, ed. N. Caranove (Toulouse: 1745), p. 458
B. Kaplan, A. von Mehren and R. Schaefer, ‘Phases of German Civil Procedure I’ (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review 1193–268
B. Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 1961), p. 109
B. Russell, History of Western Philosophy, 2nd edn (London: Routledge, 1961), p. 585
B. Sales and D. Shuman, Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2005), p. 139
B. Sales and D. Shuman, Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2005), p. 139
B. Shapiro, ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ and ‘Probable Cause’: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence (Berkeley CA: California University Press, 1991).
B. Shapiro, ‘Beyond Reasonable Doubt’ and ‘Probable Cause’: Historical Perspectives on the Anglo-American Law of Evidence (Berkeley CA: University of California Press, 1991)
B. Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England 1550–1720 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000)
B. Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England 1550–1720 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000)
B. Shapiro, A Culture of Fact: England 1550–1720 (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press, 2000), pp. 25 and 118.
B. Spencer, ‘Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts’ (2007) 4 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 305–29
B. Spinoza, Ethics (1677), trans. A. Boyle, ed. G. Parkinson (London: Dent, 1993)
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
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. A Treatise on Presumptions of Law and Fact with the Theory and Rules of Presumptive or Circumstantial Proof in Criminal Cases (London: Sweet, 1844)
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)
Beuscher, J. ‘The Use of Experts by the Courts’ (1941) 54 Harvard Law Review 1105–27
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
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
Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R. Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)
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)
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. and Thompson, B. ‘Single Joint Expert’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 57–75
Burn, S. Successful Use of Expert Witnesses in Civil Disputes (Crayford: Shaw and Sons, 2005)
Burns, R. A Theory of the Trial (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)
C. Allen, The Law of Evidence in Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 14.
C. Allen, The Law of Evidence in Victorian England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 18
C. Aubry and C. Rau, Cours de droit civil français, 5th edn (Paris: Billard, 1922), p. 74
C. Champaud, ‘Société contemporaine et métamorphose de l'expertise judiciaire’, in Mélanges Henry Blaise (Paris: Economica, 1995), pp. 59–79
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.
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
C. Hempel, Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: Free Press, 1965), p. 4
C. Jones, Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine, and the Practice of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
C. Jones, Expert Witnesses: Science, Medicine, and the Practice of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 149
C. McCormick, Handbook on the Law of Evidence (St Paul MN: West, 1954)
C. Ngwasiri, ‘Some Problems of Expertise in French Civil Procedure’ (1989) 8 Civil Justice Quarterly 168–83
C. Oddie, Science and the Administration of Justice (London: Justice, 1991)
C. Oddie, Science and the Administration of Justice (London: Justice, 1991).
C. Reed and G. Rowe, ‘Translating Toulmin Diagrams: Theory Neutrality in Argument Representation’ (2005) 19 Argumentation 267–86
C. Tapper, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 336.
C. Tapper, Cross and Tapper on Evidence, 11th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 82
C. Yates, ‘Doctoring the Evidence: Medical Evidence in Child Custody Cases in Australia’ (1986) 5 Civil Justice Quarterly 144, 148
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
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's Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims (London: 2005), [4.7]
Civil Justice Council, Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims (London: 2005)
Civil Justice Council, Protocol for the Instruction of Experts to Give Evidence in Civil Claims (London: 2005)
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
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)
Cour de cassation, Le nouveau code de procédure civile: vingt ans après (Paris: La Documentation Française, 1998)
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)
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
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)
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).
D. Beyleveld and R. Brownsword, Human Dignity in Bioethics and Biolaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) 72
D. Bourcier and M. De Bonis, Les paradoxes de l'expertise: savoir ou juger? (Paris: Institut Synthélab, 1999), p. 17
D. Bourcier and M. De Bonis, Les paradoxes de l'expertise: savoir ou juger? (Paris: Institut Synthélab, 1999), pp. 45–58.
D. Carson, Professionals and the Courts – A Handbook for Expert Witnesses (Birmingham: Venture Press, 1990).
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
D. Dwyer, ‘Beyond Autonomy: the Role of Dignity in “Biolaw”’ (2003) 23 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 319–31.
D. Dwyer, ‘Changing Approaches to Expert Evidence in England and Italy’ (2002) 1 International Commentary on Evidence
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)
D. Dwyer, ‘Closed Evidence, Reasonable Suspicion and Torture’ (2005) 9 Evidence and Proof 126–31
D. Dwyer, ‘Expert Evidence in the English Civil Courts, 1550–1800’ (2007) 28 Journal of Legal History 93–118.
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
D. Dwyer, ‘Knowledge, Truth and Justification in Legal Fact Finding’ (2007) 1(4) Reasoner 5–6
D. Dwyer, ‘Legal Remedies for the Negligent Expert’ (2008) 12 Evidence and Proof 93–115
D. Dwyer, ‘The Duties of Expert Witnesses of Fact and Opinion’ (2003) 7 Evidence and Proof 264–9.
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)
D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1740) ed. P. Nidditch, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978)
D. Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature (1740), ed. P. Nidditch, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
D. Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), ed. P. Nidditch, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)
D. Hume, Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), ed. P. Nidditch, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)
D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)
D. Kahneman, P. Slovic and A. Tversky (eds.), Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982)
D. Menashe and M. Shamash, ‘The Narrative Fallacy’ (2005) 3 International Commentary on Evidence
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
D. Nelken and J. Feest (eds.), Adapting Legal Cultures (Oxford: Hart, 2001)
D. Nelken, ‘A Just Measure of Science?’ in M. Freeman and H. Reece (eds.), Science in Court (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1988), pp. 11–36
D. Nelken, ‘A Just Measure of Science?’ in M. Freeman and H. Reece (eds.), Science in Court (Aldershot: Ashgate, 1988), pp. 11–36
D. Nelken, ‘Law and Disorder: A Letter from Italy’ (1992) 8 Socio-Legal Newsletter 6
D. Nelken, ‘Law and Knowledge / Law as Knowledge’ (2006) 15 Social Legal Studies 570–3
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. 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.
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
D. Schum, Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning (London: John Wiley, 1994)
D. Schum, Evidential Foundations of Probabilistic Reasoning (London: John Wiley, 1994), p. 34
D. Walton, ‘Rules for Reasoning from Knowledge and Lack of Knowledge’ (2006) 34 Philosophia 355–76
D. Walton, Legal Argumentation and Evidence (University Park PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002)
D. Walton, Legal Argumentation and Evidence (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2002), pp. 178, 239
D. Yale (ed.), Lord Nottingham's Chancery Cases, 2 vols., folios 73 and 79 (London: Selden Society, 1954 and 1961).
Damaška, M. ‘Epistemology and Legal Regulation of Proof’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 117–30
Damaška, M. ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure’ (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 506–89
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
Damaška, M. Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997)
Damaška, M. The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1986)
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. ‘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. ‘The Duties of Expert Witnesses of Fact and Opinion’ (2003) 7 Evidence and Proof 264–9
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)
E. Beecher-Monas, Evaluating Scientific Evidence: an Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
E. Beecher-Monas, Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 27–32
E. Beecher-Monas, Evaluating Scientific Evidence: An Interdisciplinary Framework for Intellectual Due Process (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
E. Check and D. Cyranoski, ‘Korean Scandal will have Global Fallout’ (2005) 438 Nature 1056–7
E. Coke, Institutes of the Laws of England, vol. IV (London: 1644), p. 279
E. Ebsworth, ‘Accreditation: A Novel Approach’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 17–28.
E. Evans-Pritchard, Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937)
E. Gettier, ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ (1963) 23 Analysis 121–3
E. Gettier, ‘Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?’ (1963) 23 Analysis 121–3
E. Grande, ‘Italian Criminal Justice: Borrowing and Resistance’ (2000) 48 American Journal of Comparative Law 227–59
E. Hobsbawm and T. Ranger (eds.), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)
E. Jeuland, ‘Expertise’, in L. Cadiet (ed.), Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), pp. 503–10, p. 508
E. Jeuland, ‘Expertise’, in L. Cadiet (ed.), Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), pp. 503–10, pp. 503–4
E. Roscoe, The High Court of Admiralty: The Last Phase (London: Kelly Law Book, 1927)
E. Roscoe, The High Court of Admiralty: The Last Phase (London: Kelly Law Book, 1927), pp. 3–4
E. Sunderland, ‘The Inefficiency of the American Jury’ (1915) 13 Michigan Law Review 302–16
E. Sward, The Decline of the Civil Jury (Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2001), p. 13
E. Sward, The Decline of the Civil Jury (Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2001), p. 13
E. Tufte, Beautiful Evidence (Cheshire CT: Graphics Press, 2006), p. 9.
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)
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)
F. Bacon, Advancement of Learning (London: 1605)
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
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
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
F. Freemon, ‘The Origin of the Medical Expert Witness: the Insanity of Edward Oxford’ (2001) 22 Journal of Legal Medicine 349–73.
F. Goodall, ‘The Expert Witness: Partisan with a Conscience’ (1990) 56 Journal of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators
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.
F. McAuley, ‘Canon Law and the End of the Ordeal’ (2006) 26 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 473–513
F. Strier, ‘The Educated Jury: A Proposal for Complex Litigation’ (1997) 47 DePaul Law Review 49–83
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. and Selby, H. Expert Evidence (Sydney: LBC, 1993)
Freckleton, I., Reddy, P. and Selby, H. Australian Judicial Perspectives on Expert Evidence: An Empirical Study (Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 1999)
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
G. Anscombe, ‘On Brute Facts’ (1958) 18 Analysis 69–72
G. Bergmann, Philosophy of Science (Madison WI: Wisconsin University Press, 1957), p. 20
G. Berkeley, Principles of Human Knowledge (1710), ed. R. Woolhouse (London: Penguin, 1988)
G. Bower, J. Black and T. Turner, ‘Scripts in Memory for Texts’ (1979) 11 Cognitive Psychology 177–220.
G. Brumfiel, ‘Misconduct? It's All Academic…’ (2007) 445 Nature 240–1
G. Chiovenda, Principii di diritto processuale civile: le azioni, il processo di cognizione, 3rd edn (Naples: Eugenio Jovene, 1965), p. 65
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
G. Edmond (ed.), Expertise in Regulation and Law (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004)
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, ‘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, p. 9
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.
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
G. Edmond, ‘After Objectivity: Expert Evidence and Procedural Reform’ (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review 131–64
G. Edmond, ‘After Objectivity: Expert Evidence and Procedural Reform’ (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review 131–64
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. Gigerenzer, P. Todd and the ABC Research Group, Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
G. Gilbert, The Law of Evidence (London: 1754)
G. Gilbert, The Law of Evidence, ed. C. Lofft, 4th edn (Dublin: 1795)
G. Gilbert, The Law of Evidence, ed. C. Lofft, 4th edn (Dublin: 1795)
G. Marsden (ed.), Select Pleas in the Court of Admiralty (1547–1602), 2 vols., folios 6 and 11 (London: Selden Society, 1892 and 1897).
G. Moore, ‘A Defence of Common Sense’, in J. Muirhead (ed.), Contemporary British Philosophy, 2nd series (London: Allen and Unwin, 1924), pp. 191–223
G. Palazzolo, Prova legale e pena: la crisi del sistema tra evo medio e moderno (Naples: Jovene, 1979)
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
G. Squibb, Doctors' Commons (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), pp. 1–22
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.
G. Teubner (ed.), Autopoietic Law: A New Approach to Law and Society (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1988)
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
G. Teubner, Law as an Autopoietic System (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993)
G. Ubertis, Argomenti di procedura penale (Milan: Giuffrè, 2002), p. 5
G. Ubertis, Argomenti di procedura penale (Milan: Giuffrè, 2002), p. 5
G. van Cleve, ‘Somerset's Case and its Antecedents in Imperial Perspective’ (2006) 24 Law and History Review 601–46
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)
Galileo Galilei's 1632 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. ‘Scientific Expert Testimony in Anglo-American Courts, 1782–1923’, Ph.D. thesis, University of California at Berkeley, 1997
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)
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)
Goldman, A. Knowledge in a Social World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)
Goldman, A. Pathways to Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)
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
H. Collins, ‘Scientific Evidence: A Common Sense Approach Is Needed’ (1996) 4 Expert Evidence 156–8
H. Consett, Practice of the Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Courts (London: Basset, 1685)
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)
H. Erichson, ‘Mass Tort Litigation and Inquisitorial Justice’ (1999) 87 Georgetown Law Journal 1983–2024, 1987
H. Erlanger, ‘Jury Research in America: its Past and Future’ (1970) 4 Law and Society Review 345–70
H. Hammelmann, ‘Expert Evidence’ (1947) 11 Modern Law Review 32–9
H. Hammelmann, ‘Expert Evidence’ (1947) 11 Modern Law Review 32–9.
H. Hammelmann, ‘Rules of Evidence Under the New Italian Civil Codes’ (1947) 29 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law 39–46, 40
H. Hart and T. Honoré, Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985)
H. Hart and T. Honoré, Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985)
H. Hart and T. Honoré, Causation in the Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985), pp. 9–10
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)
H. Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), p. 57
H. Hart, The Concept of Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), pp. 89–91.
H. Ho, ‘The Epistemic Basis of Legal Fact-finding’ (2007) 1(2) Reasoner 5–6
H. Ho, A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
H. Ho, A Philosophy of Evidence Law: Justice in the Search for Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)
H. Kötz, ‘Civil Litigation and Public Interest’ (1982) 1 Civil Justice Quarterly 237, 239
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005)
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005)
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005)
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005), [33.12]
H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence, 16th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005), p. 53
H. Maturana and F. Varela, Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living (Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980), p. 78.
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
H. Zeisel and S. Diamond, ‘“Convincing Empirical Evidence” on the Six Member Jury’ (1974) 41 University of Chicago Law Review 281–95
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. ‘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. ‘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. ‘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. ‘Trial and Error: The Supreme Court's Philosophy of Science’ (2005) 95 American Journal of Public Health S66–S73
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. Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998)
Habermas, J. Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997)
Hacking, I. ‘Experimentation and Scientific Realism’ (1982) 13 Philosophical Topics 71–87
Hacking, I. The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975)
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. ‘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)
Hart, H. The Concept of Law, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994)
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. ‘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
Hempel, C. Aspects of Scientific Explanation (New York: Free Press, 1965)
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. A Treatise of Human Nature (1740), ed. P. Nidditch, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978)
Hume, D. Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding (1748), ed. P. Nidditch, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975)
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
I. Dennis, The Law of Evidence, 2nd edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2002), p. 431
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
I. Freckleton and H. Selby, Expert Evidence (Sydney: LBC, 1993)
I. Freckleton, P. Reddy and H. Selby, Australian Judicial Perspectives on Expert Evidence: An Empirical Study (Melbourne: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration, 1999)
I. Hacking, ‘Experimentation and Scientific Realism’ (1982) 13 Philosophical Topics 71–87
I. Hacking, The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975)
I. Hacking, The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975)
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)
I. Scott, ‘Immunity from Suit of Expert Witnesses’ (1998) 17 Civil Justice Quarterly 349–53.
J. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History, 4th edn (London: Butterworths, 2002), p. 182.
J. Basten, ‘The Court Expert in Civil Trials – A Comparative Appraisal’ (1977) 41 Modern Law Review 174–91, 177.
J. Basten, ‘The Court Expert in Civil Trials – A Comparative Appraisal’ (1977) 41 Modern Law Review 174–91, 181
J. Beardsley, ‘Proof of Fact in French Civil Procedure’ (1986) 34 American Journal of Comparative Law 459–86, 468
J. Beuscher, ‘The Use of Experts by the Courts’ (1941) 54 Harvard Law Review 1105–27, 1118.
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
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
J. Brundage, ‘The Ethics of the Legal Profession: Mediaeval Canonists and their Clients’ (1973) 33 The Jurist 237
J. Clendinnen, ‘Ratifying Foundherentism’, in de Waal (ed.), Susan Haack, pp. 73–87
J. Cohen, The Probable and the Provable (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977)
J. Cooper, E. Bennett and H. Sukel, ‘Complex Scientific Testimony: How Do Jurors Make Decisions?’ (1996) 20 Law and Human Behaviour 379–94, 381
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)
J. Eekelaar, ‘The Emergence of Children's Rights’ (1986) 6 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 161–82
J. Frank, Courts on Trial (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950), pp. 80–102
J. Frank, Law and the Modern Mind (New York: Tudor, 1930)
J. Habermas, Between Facts and Norms (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1997), p. 53.
J. Hall, The Practice and Jurisdiction of the Court of Admiralty (1809) (Ann Arbor MI: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 2004)
J. Jackson and S. Doran, ‘Judge and Jury: Towards a New Division of Labour in Criminal Trials’ 60 Modern Law Review 759–78
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
J. Jackson, ‘Playing the Culture Card in Cross-Jurisdictional Transplants’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 51–67
J. Jackson, ‘The Effect of Legal Culture and Proof in Decisions to Prosecute’ (2004) 3 Law Probability and Risk 109–31
J. Jackson, ‘The Effect of Legal Culture and Proof in Decisions to Prosecute’ (2004) 3 Law Probability and Risk 109–31, 124–5
J. Jackson, ‘The Ultimate Issue Rule: One Rule Too Many’ [1984] Criminal Law Review 75.
J. Jacob, ‘Meetings of Experts Without Prejudice’ (1986) 5 Civil Justice Quarterly 279.
J. Jacob, Civil Justice in the Age of Human Rights (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007)
J. Jacob, The Fabric of English Civil Justice (London: Stevens, 1987), pp. 246–50
J. Jolowicz, ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Models of Civil Procedure’ (2003) 52 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 281–95, 283.
J. Jolowicz, On Civil Procedure (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 3
J. Langbein, ‘Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 1–136.
J. Langbein, ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823–66
J. Langbein, ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823–66
J. Langbein, ‘Trashing the German Advantage’ (1988) 82 Northwestern University Law Review 763–84, 772
J. Langbein, The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
J. Langbein, The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
J. Langbein, The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 16.
J. Langbein, The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), p. 270.
J. Langbein, Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977)
J. Leslie, ‘From Bear Garden to Swan Lake’ Counsel (August 2005) 22–3, 23
J. Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), ed. J. Yolton, 3rd edn (London: Dent, 1993)
J. Locke, Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), ed. J. Yolton, 3rd edn (London: Dent, 1993)
J. Losee, Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), p. 102
J. Maddox, J. Randi and W. Stewart, ‘“High–Dilution” Experiments a Delusion’ (1998) 334 (6180) Nature 287
J. Matson, Effective Expert Witnessing, 3rd edn (Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1999), p. 96.
J. Matson, Effective Expert Witnessing, 3rd edn (Boca Raton FL: CRC Press, 1999), pp. 17–26
J. Menochius, Tractatus de praesumptionibus, conjecturis, signis et indiciis (Venice: 1590)
J. Miner, ‘The Jury Problem’ (1946) Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 1–15
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.
J. Mnookin, ‘Scripting Expertise: The History of Handwriting Identification Evidence and the Judicial Construction of Expertise’ (2001) 87 Virginia Law Review 1723–1845
J. Mohr, Doctors and the Law: Medical Jurisprudence in Nineteenth-Century America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
J. O'Reilly and C. Buenger, Toxic Torts Practice Guide, 2nd edn (Eagan MN: West, 2004)
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. Oldham, ‘The History of the Special (Struck) Jury in the United States’ (1998) 6 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 623–75
J. Oldham, ‘The Origins of the Special Jury’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 137–221
J. Oldham, ‘The Origins of the Special Jury’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 137–221, 138.
J. Oldham, The Mansfield Manuscripts and the Growth of English Law in the Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill NC: North Carolina University Press, 1992)
J. Paterson and G. Teubner, ‘Changing Maps: Empirical Legal Autopoiesis’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies 451–86.
J. Paterson, ‘Trans–Science, Trans–Law and Proceduralisation’ (2003) 12 Social and Legal Studies 523–43.
J. Peysner, ‘Controlling Costs’ (2003) 153 (7090) New Law Journal 1147–8.
J. Prichard and D. Yale (eds.), Hale and Fleetwood on Admiralty Jurisdiction, folio 108 (London: Selden Society, 1992).
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
J. Resnik, ‘Trial as Error, Jurisdiction as Injury: Transforming the Meaning of Article III’ (2000) 113 Harvard Law Review 924–1037
J. Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969)
J. Simpson and E. Weiner (eds.), The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)
J. Spencer and J. Flin, The Evidence of Children – The Law and the Psychology, 2nd edn (London: Blackstone, 1993), p. 270
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, ‘Court Experts and Expert Witnesses: Have We a Lesson to Learn from the French?’ (1992) 45 Current Legal Problems 213–36, 225–6
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
J. Spencer, ‘The Neutral Expert: An Implausible Bogey’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 106–10
J. Spencer, ‘The Neutral Expert: An Implausible Bogey’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 106–10, 107.
J. Spencer, ‘The Neutral Expert: An Implausible Bogey’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 106–10.
J. Stephen, A General View of the Criminal Law of England (London: McMillan, 1863), pp. 189–90.
J. Stephen, The Principles of Judicial Evidence, Being an Introduction to the Indian Evidence Act (I of 1872) (Calcutta: Thacker Spink & Co., 1872)
J. Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (London: Maxwell & Son, 1848), p. 55
J. Taylor, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence (London: Maxwell and Son, 1848), p. 940
J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1898)
J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1898), p. 523
J. Thayer, A Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at Common Law (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1898), p. 94.
J. Thayer, Select Cases on Evidence at the Common Law, 2nd edn (Cambridge MA: Charles W. Fever, 1900), p. 666.
J. Venn, Principles of Inductive Logic, 2nd edn (New York: Chelsea Publishing, 1907), p. 506
J. Watson, The Double Helix (New York: Norton, 1967)
J. Weinstein and E. Hershenov, ‘The Effect of Equity on Mass Tort Law’ [1991] University of Illinois Law Review 269–327
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. 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. 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.
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.
J. Wigmore, A Treatise on the Anglo-American System of Evidence in Trials at Common Law, rev. edn Tiller (Boston: Little, Brown, 1983)
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)
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)
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. ‘Playing the Culture Card in Cross-Jurisdictional Transplants’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 51–67
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. ‘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. ‘Meetings of Experts Without Prejudice’ (1986) 5 Civil Justice Quarterly 279–80
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, 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. ‘What Judges Should Know About the Sociology of Science’ (1992) 32 Jurimetrics 345–59
Jasanoff, S. Science at the Bar: Law, Science and Technology in America (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1995)
Jeuland, E. ‘Expertise’, in L. Cadiet (ed.), Dictionnaire de la justice (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2004), pp. 503–10
John Langbein's suggestion (in ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823–66
John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding (c. 1690), ed. J. Yolton, 3rd edn (London: Dent, 1993)
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)
Judicature Commission, First Report of the Commissioners (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1869), p. 12.
Justice in Robes (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2006)
Kötz, H. ‘Civil Litigation and Public Interest’ (1982) 1 Civil Justice Quarterly 237
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
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
K. Brad Wray, ‘Science, Biases, and the Threat of Global Pessimism’ (2001) 68 Philosophy of Science S467–S478
K. Chesebro, ‘Galileo's Retort: Peter Huber's Junk Scholarship’ (1993) 42 American University Law Review 1637–726
K. Graham, ‘“There’ll Always be an England”: the Instrumental Ideology of Evidence’ (1987) 85 Michigan Law Review, 1204–34
K. Grevling, ‘Restrictions on the Right to Silence – Introduction’, in H. Malek (ed.), Phipson on Evidence (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2005), pp. 1039–56
K. McPherson, ‘One Expert's Experience’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 159–80
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. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery (1934), trans. K. Popper (London: Hutchinson, 1959)
K. Soothill, ‘Perjury and False Statements: A Criminal Profile of Persons Convicted 1979–2001’ [2004] Criminal Law Review 926–35.
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.
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. ‘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
Kitcher, P. The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)
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)
L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)
L. Blom-Cooper, ‘Experts and Assessors: Past, Present and Future’ (2002) 21 Civil Justice Quarterly 341–456, 352
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.
L. BonJour, The Structure of Empirical Knowledge (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1985), p. 90
L. Cadiet and E. Jeuland, Droit judiciaire privé, 5th edn (Paris: Litec, 2006), p. 394
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
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.
L. Epstein and G. King, ‘The Rules of Inference’ (2002) 69 University of Chicago Law Review 1–133, 9.
L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58
L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58
L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58
L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58, 54
L. Hand, ‘Historical and Practical Considerations Regarding Expert Testimony’ (1901) 15 Harvard Law Review 40–58, 54
L. Laudan, ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’ (1981) 48 Philosophy of Science 19–49, 20
L. Laudan, ‘A Confutation of Convergent Realism’ (1981) 48 Philosophy of Science 19–49.
L. Laudan, Truth, Error and Criminal Law – An Essay in Legal Epistemology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)
L. Laudan, Truth, Error and Criminal Law – An Essay in Legal Epistemology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. xi
L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (Oxford: Blackwell, 1953)
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. ‘Shaping the Eighteenth-Century Criminal Trial: A View from the Ryder Sources’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 1–136
Langbein, J. ‘The German Advantage in Civil Procedure’ (1985) 52 University of Chicago Law Review 823–66
Langbein, J. ‘Trashing the German Advantage’ (1988) 82 Northwestern University Law Review 763–84
Langbein, J. The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)
Langbein, J. Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977)
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)
Law Reform Committee England and Wales, Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence, 17th Report, Cmnd 4489 (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1970)
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. ‘Les réformes du droit de l'expertise’ (2006) 71 Experts 12
Leclerc, O. Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l’étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005)
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)
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]
Lord Justice (Sir Mark) Waller, I. Scott, Sir H. Brooke et al. (eds.), Civil Procedure, 2 vols. (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2007)
Lord Woolf, ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession’ (2001) 9 Medical Law Review 1–16
Lord Woolf, ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession’ (2001) 9 Medical Law Review 1–16.
Lord Woolf, ‘Are the Courts Excessively Deferential to the Medical Profession?’ (2001) 9 Medical Law Review 1–16
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996)
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996)
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996)
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Final Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1996), [13.5]
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1995)
Lord Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1995)
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)
Losee, J. Historical Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993)
Luhmann, N. ‘European Rationality’, in G. Robinson and J. Rundell (eds.), Rethinking Imagination: Culture and Creativity (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 65–83
Luhmann, N. Differentiation of Society, trans. S. Holmes and C. Larmore (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)
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
M. Angell, Science on Trial: The Clash of Medical Evidence and the Law in the Breast Implant Case (New York: Norton, 1996)
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.
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
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.
M. Bishop and J. Trout, Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
M. Cappelletti and J. Perillo, Civil Procedure in Italy (Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965), pp. 190–215
M. Cappelletti and J. Perillo, Civil Procedure in Italy (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1965), pp. 174–5
M. Damaška, ‘Epistemology and Legal Regulation of Proof’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 117–30
M. Damaška, ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure’ (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 506–89
M. Damaška, ‘Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study’ (1973) 121 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 506–89
M. Damaška, ‘Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1083–106
M. Damaška, ‘Presentation of Evidence and Factfinding Precision’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1083–106
M. Damaška, ‘Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 25–39
M. Damaška, ‘Rational and Irrational Proof Revisited’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 25–39
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, ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289–308
M. Damaška, ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289–308, 299
M. Damaška, ‘Truth in Adjudication’ (1998) 49 Hastings Law Journal 289–308, 306
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)
M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 119
M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 119.
M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 151
M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 28
M. Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1997), p. 74
M. Damaška, The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1986)
M. Damaška, The Faces of Justice and State Authority: A Comparative Approach to the Legal Process (New Haven CT: Yale University Press, 1986)
M. David, ‘The Correspondence Theory of Truth’, in E. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition)
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
M. Fordham, Judicial Review Handbook, 4th edn (Oxford: Hart, 2004), [50.2]
M. Fordham, Judicial Review Handbook, 4th edn (Oxford: Hart, 2004), p. 1044.
M. Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences (London: Routledge, 1970), p. xv
M. Frankel, ‘The Search for Truth: An Umpireal View’ (1975) 123 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1031–1059
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
M. Geller, ‘Wigmorean Analysis and the Survival of Cuneiform’, in Twining and Hampsher-Monk (eds.), Evidence and Inference, pp. 216–30.
M. Howard, ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 98–105
M. Howard, ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 98–105.
M. Howard, ‘The Neutral Expert: A Plausible Threat to Justice’ [1991] Criminal Law Review 98–105.
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
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
M. King and C. Thornhill, ‘Will the Real Niklas Luhmann Stand Up, Please? A Reply to John Mingers’ (2003) 51 Sociological Review 276–85.
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
M. King, ‘An Autopoietic Approach to the Problems Presented by Parental Alienation Syndrome’ (2002) 13 Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 609–35.
M. Levy and M. Salvadori, Why Buildings Fall Down: How Structures Fail (New York: Norton, 1992)
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.
M. Macnair, The Law of Proof in Early Modern Equity (Berlin: Duncker and Humblot, 1999), pp. 25–40.
M. Redmayne, Expert Evidence and Criminal Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 202
M. Rheinstein and E. Shils (eds.), Max Weber on Law in Economy and Society (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1954)
M. Schlick, ‘Positivismus und Realismus’ (1932) 3 Erkenntnis 1–31
M. Solomon, ‘Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning’ (1992) 59 Philosophy of Science 439–55
M. Solomon, ‘Scientific Rationality and Human Reasoning’ (1992) 59 Philosophy of Science 439–55, 439–40
M. Solomon, Social Empiricism (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 2001)
M. Steup, ‘Epistemology’, in E. Zelta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition)
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
M. Taruffo, La prova dei fatti giuridici (Milan: Giuffrè, 1992), p. 67
M. Taruffo, La prova dei fatti giuridici (Milan: Giuffrè, 1992), pp. 303–10
M. Weber, Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Religionssoziologie (Tübingen: Mohr, 1922)
M.-C. Meininger (ed.), ‘L’administrateur et l'expert’ (2002) 103 Revue Française d'Administration Publique, 365–527
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
MacCormick, N. ‘Norms, Institutions and Institutional Facts’ (1998) 17 Law and Philosophy 301–45
MacCormick, N. Institutions of Law: An Essay in Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
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)
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)
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)
McPherson, K. ‘One Expert's Experience’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 159–80
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
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)
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
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)
N. Duxbury, ‘Jerome Frank and the Legacy of Legal Realism’ (1991) 18 Journal of Law and Society 175–205, 188–9
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
N. Howlin, ‘Special Juries: A Solution to the Expert Witness’ (2004) Irish Student Law Review 19–47, 33.
N. Lacey, A Life of H. L. A. Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 230.
N. Luhmann, ‘European Rationality’, in G. Robinson and J. Rundell (eds.), Rethinking Imagination: Culture and Creativity (London: Routledge, 1994), pp. 65–83.
N. Luhmann, Differentiation of Society, trans. S. Holmes and C. Larmore (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)
N. Luhmann, Differentiation of Society, trans. S. Holmes and C. Larmore (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982), p. 130.
N. Luhmann, Law as a Social System (1993), trans. K. Ziegert (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
N. Luhmann, Social Systems (1984), trans. J. Bednarz Jr (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995)
N. MacCormick, ‘Norms, Institutions and Institutional Facts’ (1998) 17 Law and Philosophy 301–45
N. MacCormick, Institutions of Law: an Essay in Legal Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 12.
N. Rose and M. Valverde, ‘Governed by Law?’ (1998) 7 Social and Legal Studies 541–53
N. Taleb, The Black Swan: the Impact of the Highly Improbable (London: Penguin, 2007)
N. Vidmar and R. Schuller, ‘Juries and Expert Evidence: Social Framework Testimony’ (1989) 52 Law and Contemporary Problems 133–76
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)
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)
O. Chase, ‘Legal Processes and National Culture’ (1997) 5 Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 1–24
O. Leclerc, ‘Les réformes du droit de l'expertise’ (2006) 71 Experts 12
O. Leclerc, Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l’étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005)
O. Leclerc, Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l'étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005).
O. Leclerc, Le juge et l'expert: contribution à l'étude des rapports entre le droit et la science (Paris: LDGJ, 2005).
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. ‘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 History of the Special (Struck) Jury in the United States’ (1998) 6 William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal 623–75
Oldham, J. ‘The Origins of the Special Jury’ (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review 137–221
Oldham, J. The Mansfield Manuscripts and the Growth of English Law in the Eighteenth Century (Chapel Hill NC: North Carolina University Press, 1992)
P. Atiyah and R. Summers, Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987)
P. Berger and T. Luckmann, The Social Construction of Reality (London: Allen Lane. 1966), p. 17.
P. Bowden, P. Croall and R. Parker, The Woolf Reforms in Practice: Freshfields Assess the Changing Landscape (London: Butterworths, 1999), p. 89.
P. Cooper, ‘Training’, in L. Blom-Cooper (ed.), Experts in the Civil Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 149–57
P. Corfield, Power and the Professions in Britain 1700–1850 (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 23.
P. Craig, Administrative Law, 5th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003), pp. 459–61
P. Craig, Administrative Law, 5th edn (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2003), pp. 522–3.
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. Glenn, Legal Traditions of the World, 3rd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)
P. Gottwald, ‘Simplified Civil Procedure in West Germany’ (1983) 31 American Journal of Comparative Law 687–701, at 687
P. Heerey, ‘Recent Australian Developments’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 386–95, 390.
P. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (New York: Basic Books, 1991)
P. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (New York: Basic Books, 1991)
P. Huber, Galileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom (New York: Basic Books, 1991)
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)
P. Kitcher, ‘1953 and All That: A Tale of Two Sciences’ (1984) 93 Philosophical Review 335–73, 335
P. Kitcher, ‘Implications of Incommensurability’ (1982) 2 Philosophy of Science Association 689–703
P. Kitcher, ‘Real Realism: The Galilean Strategy’ (2001) 110 Philosophical Review 151–97
P. Kitcher, ‘Theories, Theorists and Theoretical Change’ (1978) 87 Philosophical Review 519–547
P. Kitcher, ‘Truth or Consequences?’ (1998) 72 Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 49–63
P. Kitcher, ‘Truth or Consequences?’ (1998) 72 Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 49–63.
P. Kitcher, The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), pp. 303–89
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
P. Margot, ‘The Role of the Forensic Scientist in an Inquisitorial System of Justice’ (1998) 38 Science and Justice 71–3, 71
P. Murphy, Evidence, 9th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), p. 471
P. Murphy, Evidence, 9th edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 501
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. 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
P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004)
P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 321.
P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), p. 57
P. Roberts and A. Zuckerman, Criminal Evidence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 132–46
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
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)
P. Rock, ‘Witnesses and Space in a Crown Court’ (2001) 31 British Journal of Criminology 266–79, 268.
P. Tillers, ‘Prejudice, Politics and Proof’ (1988) 86 Michigan Law Review 768–75
P. van Kampen, Expert Evidence Compared: Rules and Practices in the Dutch and American Criminal Justice System (Antwerp: Intersentia Rechtswetenschappen, 1998)
P. Winch, ‘Understanding a Primitive Society’ (1964) 1(14) American Philosophical Quarterly 307–24
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)
Porter, R. England in the Eighteenth Century, 2nd edn (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1990)
Posner, R. ‘Practice and Potential of the Advisory Jury’ (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 1363–81
Posner, R. Law and Legal Theory in England and America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996)
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)
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
R. Aigler and I. Yates, ‘The Triangle of Culture, Inference and Litigation System’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 137–50
R. Aigler and I. Yates, ‘The Triangle of Culture, Inference and Litigation System’ (2003) 2 Law Probability and Risk 137–50
R. Alexy, A Theory of Legal Argumentation: The Theory of Rational Discourse as Theory of Legal Justification (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
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.
R. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001)
R. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001)
R. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001), ch. 5.
R. Auld, Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 2001), p. 572, [11.130]
R. Boyd, ‘On the Current Status of Scientific Realism’ (1983) 19 Erkenntnis 45–90
R. Boyd, ‘On the Current Status of Scientific Realism’ (1983) 19 Erkenntnis 45–90, 45
R. Brubaker, The Limits of Rationality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Thought of Max Weber (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1984), p. 8.
R. Burns, A Theory of the Trial (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999)
R. Collingwood, ‘On the So-Called Idea of Causation’ (1937–8) 38 Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 85–112.
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)
R. Descartes, Discours de la méthode (Paris: 1637)
R. Eggleston, Evidence, Proof and Probability (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1978), p. 145
R. Encinas de Munagorri, ‘La communauté scientifique est-elle un ordre juridique?’ [1998] Revue trimestrielle de droit civil 247–83
R. Feldman, ‘Naturalized Epistemology’, in E. Zalta(ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2006 Edition)
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
R. Hastie, Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993)
R. Helmholz, Canon Law and the Law of England (London: Hambledon Press, 1987), pp. 21 and 35
R. Helmholz, Canon Law and the Law of England (London: Hambledon Press, 1987), pp. 36–7
R. Helmholz, The Ius Commune in England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 118ff
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
R. Jackson, ‘The Incidence of Jury Trial during the Past Century’ (1937) 1 Modern Law Review 132–44.
R. Jacob, ‘Court Appointed Experts v Party Experts: Which is Better?’ (2004) 23 Civil Justice Quarterly 400–7.
R. Lempert, ‘Civil Juries and Complex Cases: Let's Not Rush to Judgment’ (1981) 80 Michigan Law Review 68–132
R. Lempert, ‘The New Evidence Scholarship: Analyzing the Process of Proof’ (1986) 66 Boston University Law Review 439–77
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
R. Meadow (ed.), The ABC of Child Abuse, 3rd edn (London: BMJ Publishing, 1997), p. 29
R. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), pp. 270–7
R. Millar (ed.), A History of Continental Civil Procedure (London: J. Murray, 1928), pp. 681 and 723
R. Mnookin, ‘Child Custody Adjudication: Judicial Functions in the Face of Indeterminacy’ (1975) 39 Law and Contemporary Problems 226–93
R. Nisbett and L. Ross, Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980)
R. Nisbett and L. Ross, Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall, 1980), p. 14
R. O'Day, The Professions in Early Modern England 1450–1800 (Harlow: Longman, 2000), p. 23.
R. Pattenden, ‘Litigation Privilege and Expert Opinion Evidence’ (2000) 4