La prueba pericial. Entre la deferencia y la educación
The use of expert knowledge in our specialized societies is constantly rising in all kinds of human activities. The same situation is observed in trials, where more and more judicial decisions are making based on expert evidence. There are two main categories of expert evidence: one of them develope...
| Autor: | |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | tesis doctoral |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2014 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | CBUC, CESCA |
| Repositorio: | TDR. Tesis Doctorales en Red |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:www.tdx.cat:10803/284763 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10803/284763 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Prueba pericial Prova pericial Expert evidence Conocimiento experto Coneixement expert Expertise Epistemología jurídica Epistemologia jurídica Legal epistemology Daubert Perito de parte Perit de part Expert hired by a party Perito oficial Perit oficial Court appointed expert 34 |
| Sumario: | The use of expert knowledge in our specialized societies is constantly rising in all kinds of human activities. The same situation is observed in trials, where more and more judicial decisions are making based on expert evidence. There are two main categories of expert evidence: one of them developed by an expert hired by a party according with his interests, the other one performed by a court appointed expert. Among their differences are the ones that the party’s expert is per-se the expert chosen by one of the sides, carries on the pertinent tests without a procedure control, presenting to the judge statements over the facts that he has to value. On the other side, the court appointed expert is named by the judge, carries out the tests under the procedure frame and, for this, is susceptible to the procedure control, amen to the existence of a possibility that the judge specifies the epistemic necessities of the case. Once their differences are identify is necessary to reflect them in the admissibility, hearing and assessment of each category of expert evidence |
|---|