• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>The journal of criminal law >The Quasi-expert Witness: Fish or Fowl?
【24h】

The Quasi-expert Witness: Fish or Fowl?

机译：准专家证人：鱼还是鸡？

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Among the many issues this Comment, in the interests of brevity, has been unable to consider are those arising from the trial judge's direction that the jury in Flynn should not attempt to compare the voices heard on the recording with those of the defendants while giving evidence. There are also many issues relating to the jury's discretion to accept or reject prosecution evidence, i.e. relating to evidential weight; and much could have been said regarding the burden of proof and hearsay issues. However, it is hoped that sufficient evidence has been presented to justify an argument for clearly differentiating quasi-expert from expert evidence and applying their respective reliability-based and objective exclusionary rule tests prior to, and separately from, the consideration of subjective, case-specific issues of fairness and proportionality.
机译：为了简洁起见，本《评论》未能考虑的众多问题中，有一些是由主审法官的指示引起的，弗林陪审团的陪审团在提供证据时不应尝试将录音中的声音与被告的声音进行比较。还有很多与陪审团决定是否接受或拒绝起诉证据有关的问题，即与证据权重有关；关于举证和传闻问题的负担，本来可以说很多。但是，希望在考虑主观，案例分析之前以及与之分开考虑之前，已经提供了足够的证据来证明有理由将准专家与专家证据区分开来，并分别应用基于可靠性和客观排除规则的检验。公平和相称的具体问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号