Advertisement

Scientific Evidence in Civil Courtrooms: A Comparative Perspective

  • Paola MonacoEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (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.

Keywords

Scientific evidence Civil procedure law Courts Civil law v. common law 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Abel X, Pons S, Orellana R (2012) Country report—Spain. European Expertise & Expert Institute. Available at www.experts-institute.eu/
  2. Abramson JB (2000) We, the jury: the jury system and the ideal of democracy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (Mass.)Google Scholar
  3. 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 9–38Google Scholar
  4. Bernstein D (2013) The Misbegotten judicial resistance to the Daubert Revolution. Notre Dame Law Rev 27–70Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein D, Lasker E (2015) Defending Daubert: it’s time to amend Federal Rule of evidence 702. William Mary Law Rev 57(1):1–48Google Scholar
  6. Breyer S (2011) Introduction. In: Reference manual on scientific evidence. The National Academies Press, Washington D.C., pp 1–9Google Scholar
  7. 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 77–19Google Scholar
  8. Chase, O., et alii (2007). Civil Litigation in Comparative Context, St. Paul: WestGoogle Scholar
  9. Chase O, Varano V (2012) Comparative civil justice. In: Bussani M, Mattei U (eds) The Cambridge companion to comparative law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 210–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comoglio LP (2010) Le prove civili. Utet, TurinGoogle Scholar
  11. Damaška MR (1991) I volti della giustizia e del potere analisi comparatistica del processo. Il Mulino, BolognaGoogle Scholar
  12. Damaška MR (1997) Evidence law adrift. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  13. Deshayes B, Jacquemin P (2012) Country report—Germany. European Expertise & Expert Institute. Available at www.experts-institute.eu/
  14. Dufraimont L (2008) Evidence law and the jury: a reassessment. McGill Law J 53:199–242Google Scholar
  15. 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 57:661–684Google Scholar
  16. 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 67:111–125Google Scholar
  17. Faigman DL (2013) The daubert revolution and the birth of modernity: managing scientific evidence in the age of science. Univ Calif Davis Law Rev 46:893–930Google Scholar
  18. 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 15:1799–1835Google Scholar
  19. Fine TM (2007) An introduction to the anglo-american legal system. Aranzadi, NavarraGoogle Scholar
  20. Franklin MA (2006) Tort law and alternatives: cases and materials. Thomson Reuters/Foundation Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Giannelli PC (2009) Understanding evidence. LexisNexis, New ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  22. Gross S (1991) Expert evidence. Wisconsin Law Rev 1113–1232Google Scholar
  23. Grossi S, Pagni MC (2010) Commentary on the Italian code of civil procedure. OUP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Hans V (2007) Judges, juries, and scientific evidence. J Law Policy 16:19–46Google Scholar
  25. Hodgson D (2008) The law of intervening causation. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  26. Huber PW (1991) Galileo’s revenge: junk science in the courtroom. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Kötz H (2003) Civil justice systems in Europe and the United States. Duke J Comp Int Law 13:61–78Google Scholar
  28. Mattei U (1997) Three patterns of law: taxonomy and change in the world’s legal systems. Am J Comp Law 45:5–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCormick CT, Broun KS, Dix GE (2013) McCormick on evidence. Thomson Reuters, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  30. Merryman JH (1965) The Italian style I: doctrine. Stanford Law Rev 18:39–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merryman JH, Pérez-Perdomo R (2007) The civil law tradition: an introduction to the legal systems of Europe and Latin America. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Moenssens AA (2007) Scientific evidence in civil and criminal cases. Foundation Press-Thomson/West, New York-St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  33. Monaco P (2011) Note sulla scientific evidence nel Processo Civile USA. Rivista critica del diritto privato 4:629–660Google Scholar
  34. Mueller CB, Kirkpatrick LC (2019) Federal rules of evidence: with advisory committee notes and legislative history. Kluwer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Nuée A (2012) Country report—France. European Expertise & Expert Institute. Available at www.experts-institute.eu/
  36. Nuée A (2015) Civil-law expert reports in the EU: national rules and practices. European Union, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  37. Orth JV (2003) Due process of law: a brief history. University Press of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  38. Previti S (ed) (2014) Le prove civili. Kluwer, LavisGoogle Scholar
  39. 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, LittletonGoogle Scholar
  40. Rossetti M (2012) Il C.T.U. (“l’occhiale del giudice”). Consulente tecnico e ausiliari del giudice. Giuffrè, MilanGoogle Scholar
  41. Rotunda RD (2012) Treatise on constitutional law: substance and procedure. West, EaganGoogle Scholar
  42. Schlesinger R, Mattei U, Ruskola T, Gidi A (2009) Schlesinger’s comparative law: cases, text, materials. Foundation Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Stapleton J (2010) Factual causation. Federal Law Rev 38:467–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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 159–180Google Scholar
  45. Taruffo M (2005) La prova scientifica nel processo civile. Rivista trimestrale di diritto e procedura civile 59:1079–1111Google Scholar
  46. Taruffo M (2012) L’istruzione probatoria. In: Taruffo M (ed) La prova nel processo civile. Giuffré, Milan, pp 69–167Google Scholar
  47. Thayer JB (1896) A preliminary treatise on evidence at the common law. Little, Brown and Co., BostonGoogle Scholar
  48. Tonini P (2011) La Cassazione accoglie i criteri Daubert sulla prova scientifica. Riflessi sulla verifica delle massime di esperienza. Diritto penale e processo 11:1341–1347Google Scholar
  49. Treadway M, Krafka JC, Cecil JS (2000) Expert testimony in federal civil trials: a preliminary analysis. Federal Judicial Center, WashingtonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bocconi University School of LawMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options