Advertisement

From Scientific Evidence to Juridical Proof

  • Gabrio Forti
Chapter

Abstract

The valorization of scientific evidence provided by the expert as evidence in the trial framework has been revised, as well as the role of the judge, in light of the assumptions derived from the Daubert Judgment. The criterion of “general acceptance” of evidence obtained from the published literature in journals subjected to peer-review and the expert’s reputation can be helpful, particularly in cases where there is an open debate within the scientific community. It is the judge, however, who must take on the role of gatekeeper of the validity of evidence, to consent to its probatory admissibility, through a preliminary comprehension of the methods of science. The evaluation of reliability and admissibility of evidence is also reflected in the areas of medical malpractice and professional liability. Standards of care may be derived from an analysis not only of the guidelines, but also of other scientific sources to be subjected to the usual proof of admissibility, as well as new research paths that take account of personalized medicine and the application of guidelines to the individual.

References

  1. 1.
    Stella F (2003) La costruzione giuridica della scienza: sicurezza e salute negli ambienti di lavoro. In: Rivista italiana di diritto e procedura penale, pp 55–70Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fenton N (2011) Science and law: Improve statistics in court. Nature 479(7371):36–37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Faigman DL (2015) Bringing scientific peer review to scientific evidence expert evidence report. The Bureau of National Affairs, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berger MA (2011) The admissibility of expert testimony. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference manual on scientific evidence, 3rd edn, pp 11–36. The National Academic Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breyer S (2011) Introduction. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd edn, pp 1–9. The National Academic Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fiandaca G (2005) Il giudice di fronte alle controversie tecnico scientifiche. Il diritto e il processo penale In: Diritto e questioni pubbliche, vol 5. http://www.dirittoequestionipubbliche.org/page/2005_n5/mono_G_Fiandaca.pdf
  7. 7.
    Tribe LH (1971) Trial by mathematics: precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Review 84;6:1329–1393 (see also the Italian Translation in Stella 2004, 181–257)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tillers P (2011) Trial by Mathematics—reconsidered Law. Probabili Risk 10:167–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodstein D (2011) How Science Works. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd edn, pp 37–54. The National Academic Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stella F (2005) Il giudice corpuscolariano. La cultura delle prove, Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Giaretta P (2015) Alcune considerazioni generali sula nozione di prova scientifica. In: Marta and Giulio Ubertis (eds) Prova scientifica, ragionamento probatorio e decisione giudiziale. Jovene, Napoli, p 85–91Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stella F (2004) I saperi del giudice. La causalità e il ragionevole dubbio, Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faigman DL (1995) Mapping the Labyrinth of Scientific Evidence. 46 Hastings L.J., California, pp 555–579Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Forti G (2015) Saluto introduttivo. In: Bertolino M, Ubertis G (eds) Prova scientifica, ragionamento probatorio e decisione giudiziale. Jovene, Napoli, pp 3–7Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Forti G (2015) Il “quadro in movimento” della colpa penale del medico, tra riforme auspicate e riforme attuate. Diritto penale e processo; XXI(6): 738–742Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forti G, Catino M, D’Alessandro F, Mazzucato C, Varraso G (2010) Il problema della medicina difensiva. Una proposta di riforma in materia di responsabilità penale nell’ambito dell’attività sanitaria e gestione del contenzioso legato al rischio clinico. ETS, PisaGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Faigman DL, Monahan J, Slobogin C (2014) Group to Individual (G2i) Inference in Scientific Expert Testimony. The University of Chicago Law Review 81:417–480Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Faigman DL (2006) Judges as Amateur Scientists. Boston U L Rev 86:1207–1225Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    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. 15 Cardozo L. Rev. 1799, Hastings College of the Law, University of CaliforniaGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Giunta F (2015) Questioni scientifiche e prova scientifica tra categorie sostanziali e regole di giudizio. In: Bertolino M, Ubertis G (eds) Prova scientifica, ragionamento probatorio e decisione giudiziale. Jovene, Napoli, pp 55–84Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thomas WA (1986) Some Observations by a Scientist. F.R.D 115:142–144Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gianelli PC, Edward JI, Joseph LP (2011) Reference Guide on Forensic Identification Expertise. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd edn, pp 55–127. The National Academic Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stella F (2000) Leggi scientifiche e spiegazione causale nel diritto penale, 2nd edn. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Canzio G (2005) Prova scientifica, ricerca della “verità” e decisione giudiziaria nel processo penale. In: Decisione giudiziaria e verità scientifica Quaderno n. 8 della Riv. trim. dir. e proc. civ., Milano, 55–79Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stella F (2003) Giustizia e modernità. Le ragioni dell’innocente e la tutela delle vittime, 3rd edn. Giuffrè, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berger MA (2005) What has a decade of Daubert wrought? Am J Public Health 95(Suppl 1):S59–S65CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Forti G (2006) Accesso alle informazioni sul rischio e responsabilità: una lettura del principio di precauzione. Criminalia, pp 155–225Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Carel H, Kidd IJ (2014) Epistemic injustice in healthcare: a philosophial analysis. Med Health Care Philos 17(4):529–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fricker M (2007) Epistemic injustice power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Andrerson E (2012) Epistemic Justice as a Virtue of Social Institutions. Soc Epistemol 26(2):163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Braithwaite J (2011) The essence of responsive regulation. In: Fasken Lecture, pp 475–522Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Begel J (1995) Maine physician practice guidelines: implications for medical malpractice litigation. Maine Law Rev 69–103Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rosoff AJ (2012) The role of clinical practice guidelines in healthcare reform: an update. Ann Health Law 21:21–33Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Avraham R (2011) Clinical practice guidelines: the warped incentives in the U.S. healthcare system. Am J Law Med 37(1):7–40CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rosoff AJ (2001) Evidence-based medicine and the law: the courts confront clinical practice guidelines. J Health Polit Policy Law 26(2):327–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wong JB, Lawrence OG, Oscar AC (2011) Reference Guide on Medical Testimony. In: Committee on the Development of the Third Edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence; Committee on Science, Technology, and Law; Policy and Global Affairs; Federal Judicial Center; National Research Council (eds) Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd edn, pp 678–745 The National Academic Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ferrara SD, Baccino E, Bajanowski T, Boscolo-Berto R, Castellano M, De Angel R, Pauliukevičius A, Ricci P, Vanezis P, Vieira DN, Viel G, Villanueva E (2013) EALM working group on medical malpractice. Malpractice and medical liability. European guidelines on methods of ascertainment and criteria of evaluation. Int J Legal Med 127(3):545–557CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    FDA (2013) Paving the way for personalized medicine: FDA’s role in a new era of medical product development. Available via DIALOG. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/scienceresearch/specialtopics/personalizedmedicine/ucm372421.pdf. Accessed 16 Nov 2016
  39. 39.
    Caputo M (2012) Filo d’Arianna o flauto magico? Linee guida e checklist nel sistema della responsabilità per colpa medica. Rivista Italiana di Diritto e Procedura Penale 3:875–923Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Di Landro AR (2009) La colpa medica negli Stati Uniti e in Italia. Il ruolo del diritto penale e il confronto col sistema civile, Giappichelli, MilanoGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Williams CL (2004) Evidence-based medicine in the law beyond clinical practice guidelines: what effect will ebm have on the standard of Care? Wash & Lee. L Rev 61:479–533Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mehlman MJ (2012) Medical practice guidelines as malpractice safe harbors. J Law Med Ethics 2(2):286–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sniderman AD, Furberg CD (2009) Why guideline-making requires reform. JAMA 301(4):429–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Eddy DM (2001) The use of evidence and cost effectiveness by the courts: how can it help improve health care? J Health Polit Policy Law 26(2):387–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Trail WR, Brad AA (1995–1996) Government created Medical Practice Guidelines: the Opening of Pandora’s Box. J.L. & Health 10:231–258Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pope TM (2012) Physicians and safe harbor legal immunity. Ann Health Law, pp 121–135Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Finder JM (2000) The future of practice guidelines: should they constitute conclusive evidence of the standard of care? Health Matrix Clevel 10(1):67–117PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Mulrow CD, Lohr KN (2001) Proof and policy from medical research evidence. J Health Polit Policy Law 26(2):249–266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Walker L, John M (1988) Social Facts: Scientific Methodology as Legal Precedent. Cal L Rev 76:877CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Legal SciencesCatholic University of MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations