Read more
Well-chosen negative legal proof rules can be useful procedural safeguards. They existed in both pre-modern and modern criminal procedures.
List of contents
Prologue; 1. The origin of Roman-canon legal proof for criminal cases; 2. Epistemic foundations; 3. Orientation in the labryinth; 4. The two-eyewitnesses rule; 5. The probative impact of confessions; 6. The negative impact of legal proof; 7. Roman-canon rejection of persuasive evidence; 8. Evading the Roman-canon full proof standard; 9. Recapitulation; 10. Continental successors to Roman-canon legal proof; 11. Roman-canon legal proof and common law evidence; Epilogue.
About the author
Mirjan Damaška is Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law and Professorial Lecturer in Law at Yale Law School. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a member of the Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts and the International Academy of Comparative Law. He is the author of over 100 articles and six books, including The Faces of Justice and State Authority(1986) and Evidence Law Adrift (1997).
Summary
For legal scholars as well as non-academic lawyers, this book deals with the question of whether the evaluation of evidence should be rule-free or rule-bound. Distinguishing positive and negative legal proof, it proposes that the latter will have a bright future in view of likely scientific and technological advances.
Additional text
'The book is an outstanding historical research about some of the most important topics concerning the evaluation of evidence in criminal law. Damaška's view is original, based upon a wide and deep analysis of the historical sources. Evaluation of Evidence is an important contribution to the history of judicial systems, in particular the evolution of evidentiary rules and the function of courts, with main reference to the inquisitorial model that dominated the Western world for several centuries.' Michele Taruffo, University of Pavia, Italy
