Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Problemy Współczesnej Kryminalistyki

Vol. 26 (2022)

Artykuły

The position and role of the expert witness in the anglo-saxon and adversarial criminal procedure

  • Izabela Jankowska-Prochot
DOI: https://doi.org/10.52097/pwk.5434  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2023-04-25

Abstract

This paper outlines the position and role of the expert witness in common law legal systems in providing evidence in criminal cases. The author also presents existing guarantees of his or her impartiality. This is an extremely interesting issue because in the adversary system unlike then in inquisitorial system litigation adversaries represent their parties case or position before an impartial judge or jury who attempt to determine the truth and pass judgment according. That’s why the influence on expert-witness opinion has got a significant impact on the process.

References

  1. Literatura [Google Scholar]
  2. Ashworth A., Redmayne M., The Criminal Process, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2005. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bieńkowska B., Dyspozycyjność stron w procesie karnym na tle zasady kontradyktoryjności, „Przegląd Sądowy” 1994, nr 6. [Google Scholar]
  4. Block M.K., Parker J.S., Vyborna O., Dusek L., An experimental comparison of adversarial versus inquisitorial procedural regimes, „American Law and Economics Review” 2000, t. 2. Bradley C.M., Book Review. The Convergence of the Continental and the Common Law Model of Criminal Procedure, „Maurer School of Law: Indiana University” 1996, t. 7, nr 2. [Google Scholar]
  5. Cooper R.E., Federal Court expert usage guidelines, „Australian Bar Review” 1998, t. 16. [Google Scholar]
  6. Figueroa K.J., Hoag F., Use and misuse of expert evidence, „Construction Law International” 2019, t. 13(4). [Google Scholar]
  7. Golan T., Revisiting the history of scientific expert testimony, „Brooklyn Law Review” 2008,t. 73(3), Symposium A Cross-Disciplinary Look At Scientific Truth: What’s The Law to Do?. [Google Scholar]
  8. Goodpaster G., On the theory of American adversary criminal law, „The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology” 1987, t. 78, nr 1. [Google Scholar]
  9. Hand L., Historical and practical consideration regarding testing testimony, „Harvard Law Review” 1901, t. 15, nr 1. [Google Scholar]
  10. Jankowska-Prochot I., Model funkcjonowania instytucji biegłego. Proces przeobrażeń irlandzkiego prawa dowodowego, w: R. Cieśla (red.), Problematyka z dowodu dokumentu, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Wrocław 2019. [Google Scholar]
  11. Johnston R.G., Lufrano S., The adversary system as a means of seeking truth and justice, „The John Marshall Law Review” 2002, t. 35(2). [Google Scholar]
  12. Kenny A., The expert in court, „Law Quarterly Review” 1983, nr 99. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kompetencje biegłych sądowych – oczekiwania i kryteria oceny. Przegląd rozwiązań stosowanych w różnych państwach i systemach prawnych, „Forensic Watch 2014–2015”. [Google Scholar]
  14. Lach A., Zasada kontradyktoryjności w postępowaniu sądowym w procesie karnym de lege lata i de lege ferenda, „Palestra” 2012, nr 5–6. [Google Scholar]
  15. Landsman S., The Adversary System: A Description and Defense, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, Washington 1984. [Google Scholar]
  16. Nelken D., Comparative Criminal Justice: Making Sense of Difference, SAGE, London–Thou-sand Oaks, CA 2010. [Google Scholar]
  17. Oraegbunam I.K.E., The jurisprudence of adversarial justice, „A New Journal of African Studies” 2019, t. 15. [Google Scholar]
  18. Rochester M., Duties and responsibilities of an expert witness, „The Arbitrator and Mediator”, marzec 2001. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sammut D., Craig Ch., Bearing witness, „Chemistry in Australia”, wrzesień/paździenik 2018. [Google Scholar]
  20. Vidmar N., Expert evidence, the adversary system and the jury, „American Journal of Public Health”, lipiec 2005. [Google Scholar]
  21. Witkowska K., Kontradyktoryjność w postępowaniu przygotowawczym, „Wojskowy Przegląd Prawniczy” 2010, nr 3. [Google Scholar]
  22. Orzecznictwo [Google Scholar]
  23. Folkes v. Chad 99 E.R. 686 (1783) 3 Doug. K.B. 340. [Google Scholar]
  24. M’Naghten (1843), 8 E.R. 718. [Google Scholar]
  25. R. v. Turner [1975], 1 All ER 70. [Google Scholar]
  26. National Justice Compania Naviera SA v. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd. [Google Scholar]
  27. Whitehouse v. Jordan (1981) 1 WER 246. [Google Scholar]
  28. Polivitte Ltd V. Commercial Union Assurance Co. Plc (1987), 1 Lloyds Rep. 379. [Google Scholar]
  29. Re J (1990) FCR 193. [Google Scholar]