Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Mentoring Comparative Lawyers: Methods, Times, and Places pp 95–110Cite as

Scientific Evidence in Civil Courtrooms: A Comparative Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 338 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 77))

Abstract

When science comes in contact with the law, a variety of complex issues arise. Owing to the increasing number of legal questions which can (or even have to) be resolved by resorting to scientific knowledge, in recent years the challenges posed by the use of scientific evidence within civil proceedings have become a hot-point in legal debates across both common law and civil law jurisdictions alike. Judges, academics, and legislators have dealt with the issue of scientific evidence in multifarious ways on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean. For this reason, the aim of the chapter is to analyze how the US and continental European legal cultures have shaped their approach to scientific evidence, as well as how scientific evidence has influenced the dynamics of civil proceedings in the US and continental Europe. The comparative overview of these developments will allow us to test whether the approaches to scientific evidence in the two legal traditions are really as far apart as one might think at a first glance, or whether on the contrary they have much in common, both in terms of perspectives and outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In this chapter, we will not deal with the English common law because—in the field of scientific evidence—the US model represents a more meaningful example to study, due to the large amount of case law involved.

  2. 2.

    Many States have in their Constitution or other type of statues similar provisions of the right to a trial by jury.

  3. 3.

    This current version of Rule 702 actually includes one further amendment made in 2011, which however was stylistic in nature only. The 2000 version read: “if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case”.

References

  • Abel X, Pons S, Orellana R (2012) Country report—Spain. European Expertise & Expert Institute. Available at www.experts-institute.eu/

  • Abramson JB (2000) We, the jury: the jury system and the ideal of democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.)

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger M (2000) The supreme court’s trilogy on the admissibility of expert testimony. In: Reference manual on scientific evidence. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., pp 9–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein D (2013) The Misbegotten judicial resistance to the Daubert Revolution. Notre Dame Law Rev 27–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein D, Lasker E (2015) Defending Daubert: it’s time to amend Federal Rule of evidence 702. William Mary Law Rev 57(1):1–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Breyer S (2011) Introduction. In: Reference manual on scientific evidence. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., pp 1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Calò L (2012) Prova tecnico-scientifica e sindacato di legittimità: tra formule magiche e arte del motivare bene—nota a Cass., sez. IV, 17 settembre 2010, n. 43786. Foro Italiano, pp 77–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase, O., et alii (2007). Civil Litigation in Comparative Context, St. Paul: West

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase O, Varano V (2012) Comparative civil justice. In: Bussani M, Mattei U (eds) The Cambridge companion to comparative law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 210–240

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Comoglio LP (2010) Le prove civili. Utet, Turin

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaška MR (1991) I volti della giustizia e del potere analisi comparatistica del processo. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Damaška MR (1997) Evidence law adrift. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Deshayes B, Jacquemin P (2012) Country report—Germany. European Expertise & Expert Institute. Available at www.experts-institute.eu/

  • Dufraimont L (2008) Evidence law and the jury: a reassessment. McGill Law J 53:199–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigman DL (2000) The law’s scientific revolution: reflections and ruminations on the law’s use of experts in year seven of the revolution. Wash Lee Law Rev 57:661–684

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigman DL (2001) The tipping point in the law’s use of science: the epidemic of scientific sophistication that began with DNA profiling and toxic torts. Brooklyn Law Rev 67:111–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigman DL (2013) The daubert revolution and the birth of modernity: managing scientific evidence in the age of science. Univ Calif Davis Law Rev 46:893–930

    Google Scholar 

  • Faigman DL, Porter E, Saks MJ (1994) Check your crystal ball at the courthouse door, please: exploring the past, understanding the present, and worrying about the future of scientific evidence. Cardozo Law Rev 15:1799–1835

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine TM (2007) An introduction to the anglo-american legal system. Aranzadi, Navarra

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin MA (2006) Tort law and alternatives: cases and materials. Thomson Reuters/Foundation Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Giannelli PC (2009) Understanding evidence. LexisNexis, New Providence

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross S (1991) Expert evidence. Wisconsin Law Rev 1113–1232

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossi S, Pagni MC (2010) Commentary on the Italian code of civil procedure. OUP, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Hans V (2007) Judges, juries, and scientific evidence. J Law Policy 16:19–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgson D (2008) The law of intervening causation. Ashgate, Aldershot

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber PW (1991) Galileo’s revenge: junk science in the courtroom. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötz H (2003) Civil justice systems in Europe and the United States. Duke J Comp Int Law 13:61–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Mattei U (1997) Three patterns of law: taxonomy and change in the world’s legal systems. Am J Comp Law 45:5–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick CT, Broun KS, Dix GE (2013) McCormick on evidence. Thomson Reuters, St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Merryman JH (1965) The Italian style I: doctrine. Stanford Law Rev 18:39–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merryman JH, Pérez-Perdomo R (2007) The civil law tradition: an introduction to the legal systems of Europe and Latin America. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Moenssens AA (2007) Scientific evidence in civil and criminal cases. Foundation Press-Thomson/West, New York-St. Paul

    Google Scholar 

  • Monaco P (2011) Note sulla scientific evidence nel Processo Civile USA. Rivista critica del diritto privato 4:629–660

    Google Scholar 

  • Mueller CB, Kirkpatrick LC (2019) Federal rules of evidence: with advisory committee notes and legislative history. Kluwer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Nuée A (2012) Country report—France. European Expertise & Expert Institute. Available at www.experts-institute.eu/

  • Nuée A (2015) Civil-law expert reports in the EU: national rules and practices. European Union, Brussels

    Google Scholar 

  • Orth JV (2003) Due process of law: a brief history. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence

    Google Scholar 

  • Previti S (ed) (2014) Le prove civili. Kluwer, Lavis

    Google Scholar 

  • Proffatt J (1986) A treatise on trial by jury: including questions of law and fact: with an introductory chapter on the origin and history of jury trial. F.B. Rothman, Littleton

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossetti M (2012) Il C.T.U. (“l’occhiale del giudice”). Consulente tecnico e ausiliari del giudice. Giuffrè, Milan

    Google Scholar 

  • Rotunda RD (2012) Treatise on constitutional law: substance and procedure. West, Eagan

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlesinger R, Mattei U, Ruskola T, Gidi A (2009) Schlesinger’s comparative law: cases, text, materials. Foundation Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stapleton J (2010) Factual causation. Federal Law Rev 38:467–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taruffo M (2002) Civil procedure and the path of a civil case. In: Lena JS, Mattei U (eds) Introduction to Italian law. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 159–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Taruffo M (2005) La prova scientifica nel processo civile. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 59:1079–1111

    Google Scholar 

  • Taruffo M (2012) L’istruzione probatoria. In: Taruffo M (ed) La prova nel processo civile. Giuffré, Milan, pp 69–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Thayer JB (1896) A preliminary treatise on evidence at the common law. Little, Brown and Co., Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonini P (2011) La Cassazione accoglie i criteri Daubert sulla prova scientifica. Riflessi sulla verifica delle massime di esperienza. Diritto penale e processo 11:1341–1347

    Google Scholar 

  • Treadway M, Krafka JC, Cecil JS (2000) Expert testimony in federal civil trials: a preliminary analysis. Federal Judicial Center, Washington

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bocconi University School of Law, Milan, Italy

    Paola Monaco

Authors
  1. Paola Monaco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paola Monaco .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Legal, Language, Interpreting and Translation Studies (IUSLIT), University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Francesca Fiorentini

  2. Department of Legal, Language, Interpreting and Translation Studies (IUSLIT), University of Trieste, Trieste, Italy

    Marta Infantino

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Monaco, P. (2020). Scientific Evidence in Civil Courtrooms: A Comparative Perspective. In: Fiorentini, F., Infantino, M. (eds) Mentoring Comparative Lawyers: Methods, Times, and Places . Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 77. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34754-3_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34754-3_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-34753-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-34754-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation