Inroads into the Ultimate Issue Rule? Structural Elements of Communication between Experts and Fact-Finders

Kotsoglou, Kyriakos and Biedermann, Alex (2022) Inroads into the Ultimate Issue Rule? Structural Elements of Communication between Experts and Fact-Finders. The Journal of Criminal Law. pp. 1-18. ISSN 0022-0183 (In Press)

[img]
Preview
Text (Advance online version)
00220183211073640.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.

Download (521kB) | Preview
[img]
Preview
Text
Inroads_Ultimate_Issue_Rule.pdf - Accepted Version

Download (540kB) | Preview
Official URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/00220183211073640

Abstract

One of the most persistent questions in criminal evidence relates to the use of (unchallenged) expert evidence. What does it mean to accept or reject (unchallenged) expert evidence? To what extent can, and should, an expert enter jurisprudential territory? Is the traditional model of trial by jury viable in our complex world? In order to clarify these pressing questions, we will examine the evidential structure underpinning expert witness testimony. We will show that what we usually and, at the cost of oversimplification, call ‘evidence’, comprises three distinct questions: (i) What does the data show? (ii) What should we believe? (iii) What should we do? From this insight, a number of corollaries fall into place. First, although decisions have to be informed through reasoned inferential procedures, they cannot be reduced to scientific propositions. As a result, fact-finders do not need to cede their decision-making prerogative as some proponents of expert-driven decision-making suggest. Secondly, criminal liability is not a scientific conclusion. Rather, so our argument, it is an individualistic normative construction that involves an inferential leap which is not warranted by any scientific (i.e. general) proposition. For the rectitude of the criminal verdict (or indeed any legal decision) does not map logically onto the possible treatment of scientific findings, that is, acceptance/rejection. Thirdly, our clarification of this evidential structure, which we call coherent decisionalism, provides a conceptual framework to understand and stabilise case law on expert witness testimony.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: Funding information: The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation through grant BSSGI0_155809.
Uncontrolled Keywords: fact-finding, expert evidence, decision-making prerogative, unchallenged evidence, scientism, values, coherent decisionalism
Subjects: M200 Law by Topic
Department: Faculties > Business and Law > Northumbria Law School
Depositing User: John Coen
Date Deposited: 04 Feb 2022 11:03
Last Modified: 08 Mar 2022 16:30
URI: http://nrl.northumbria.ac.uk/id/eprint/48365

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

View more statistics