{"title":"Fallacies on Fallacies: A Reply","authors":"R. Burns","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1038","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124104652","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Common Knowledge in Legal Reasoning about Evidence","authors":"D. Walton, Fabrizio Macagno","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1035","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1035","url":null,"abstract":"It is shown how tools of argument analysis currently being developed in artificial intelligence can be applied to legal judgments about evidence based on common knowledge. Chains of reasoning containing generalizations and implicit premises that express common knowledge are modeled using argument diagrams and argumentation schemes. A controversial thesis is argued for. It is the thesis that such premises can best be seen as commitments accepted by parties to a dispute, and thus tentatively accepted, subject to default should new evidence come in that would overturn them. Common knowledge, on this view, is not knowledge, strictly speaking, but a kind of provisional acceptance of a proposition based on its not being disputed, and its being generally accepted as true, but subject to exceptions.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"118 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134444262","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Beyond the Sea: An American View of Scientific Evidence in English Criminal Cases","authors":"J. A. Moreno","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1031","url":null,"abstract":"Paul Roberts' and Adrian Zuckerman's ambitious new book, Criminal Evidence, applies the authors' \"contexualized approach to evidence and proof\" to study the question of how scientific evidence is used in English criminal trials. This review provides a critical read of Roberts' and Zuckerman's analysis and compares their review of the English evidentiary rules to the American law. The review also examines how the rules of evidence should change in response to the series of recent high profile exonerations that have occurred in each country.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"16 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116785904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Uses of History in Crawford v. Washington","authors":"F. Herrmann","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1026","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1026","url":null,"abstract":"To a striking degree, both the majority and concurring opinions in Crawford v. Washington are replete with references to Anglo-American historical materials, used to support differing conclusions about the application of the Confrontation Clause to testimonial hearsay. This essay sets out Justice Scalia's and Chief Justice Rehnquist's historical arguments and then employs the standards of legal historians to evaluate whether the two opinions use history in a valid manner. The essay concludes that the \"history\" in Crawford is not that of an historian, but is a \"usable past,\" as conceived by Cass Sunstein and Stephen Griffin.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2005-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131995568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Crawford v Washington: A View from Across the Atlantic","authors":"A. L. Choo","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1025","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1025","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the decision in Crawford v Washington from an English perspective. In doing so, it examines the implications of the major changes to criminal hearsay doctrine in England and Wales that are currently being introduced. It also examines the implications of the presence in the European Convention on Human Rights, which has been effectively incorporated into English domestic law, of a guarantee similar to that provided by the US confrontation clause.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122106146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rethinking Confrontation after Crawford","authors":"Dale A. Nance","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1017","url":null,"abstract":"A recent decision by the United States Supreme Court has substantially changed the formal interpretation of the Confrontation Clause. This essay argues that it is important to recognize the more fundamental change that the case represents, a change in the rationale lying behind the doctrine. Ultimately, this more fundamental change shifts the constitutional doctrine from a focus on preventing jury error to a focus on preventing prosecutorial abuse. Whether this laudable shift will be fully effectuated in the details of the doctrine remains to be seen.","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126411957","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Inadmissible but Material? Resolving the Circuit Split After Wood","authors":"Colin Miller","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1000","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"74 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126998591","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Changing Approaches to Expert Evidence in England and Italy","authors":"Déirdre M. Dwyer","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1001","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1001","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131629139","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Why Evidence Scholars Should Study Conversation","authors":"R. Kandel","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132568549","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Review of I.H. Dennis, The Law of Evidence (1999)","authors":"E. Imwinkelried","doi":"10.2202/1554-4567.1014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2202/1554-4567.1014","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":129839,"journal":{"name":"International Commentary on Evidence","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-06-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115745245","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
