Discussion paper: The R v T controversy: forensic evidence, law and logic

被引：8
作者：
Hamer, David [1 ]
机构：
[1] Univ Sydney, Fac Law, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
来源：
LAW PROBABILITY & RISK | 2012年 / 11卷 / 04期
关键词：
COURT;
D O I：
10.1093/lpr/mgs021
中图分类号：
D9 [法律]; DF [法律];
学科分类号：
0301 ;
摘要：
引用
收藏
页码：331 / 345
页数：15
相关论文
共 23 条
[11]  
Berger Charles, 2010, NEDERLANDS JURISTENB, V13, P787
[12]   Evidence evaluation: A response to the court of appeal judgment in R v T [J].
Berger, Charles E. H. ;
Buckleton, John ;
Champod, Christophe ;
Evett, Ian W. ;
Jackson, Graham .
SCIENCE & JUSTICE, 2011, 51 (02) :43-49
[13]  
Duff A, 2007, TRIAL TRIAL, V3, P149
[14]  
Faigman D, 2011, SCI JUSTICE, V51, P213, DOI 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.09.001
[15]  
Gigerenzer G., 1991, Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol., V2, P83, DOI 10.1080/14792779143000033
[16]   A Dynamic Reconstruction of the Presumption of Innocence [J].
Hamer, David .
OXFORD JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES, 2011, 31 (02) :417-435
[17]  
Hamer David, 1997, Monash University Law Review, V23, P43
[18]   MODELING RELEVANCE [J].
LEMPERT, RO .
MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, 1977, 75 (5-6) :1021-1057
[19]   The likelihood-ratio framework and forensic evidence in court a response to R v T [J].
Morrison, Geoffrey Stewart .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE & PROOF, 2012, 16 (01) :1-29
[20]  
Roberts Paul, 2010, CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
123