Current trends in United States civil probatory law
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.esde.v77n170a06Keywords:
Probatory law, civil law, common law, burden of proof, presumptionsAbstract
This article discusses current trends in civil probatory law in the United States based on its fundamental concepts such as burden of proof, presumptions, burden of production, burden of persuasion, reversal of burden of proof, and discovery of evidence, as institutions that are part of so-called American exceptionalism. All of the above is analyzed taking into account some characteristics of common law legal tradition, such as juries and standards of proof. These institutions are in contrast to the institutions of civil probatory law in civil law countries.
Downloads
References
Barcelona: Ariel.
Allen, R. (2014). Professor Allen on Evidence. China University of Political Science and
law. Beijing: China University of Political Science.
Allen, R. J., Swift, E., Schwartz, D. S. & Pardo, M. S. (2016). An Analytical Approach to
Evidence: Text, Problems and Cases. Nueva York: Wolters Kluwers.
Agudelo Mejía, D. A., Pabón Giraldo, L. D., Toro Garzón, L. O., Bustamante Rúa, M. M. y
Vargas Vélez, O. (2018). Derecho Procesal del Siglo XXI. Visión innovadora. Medellín:
Sello editorial Universidad de Medellín.
Arrieta Caro, J. (2017). Rise and fall of the constitutional right to jury trial for criminal
cases in the United States. Derecho PUCP, 78.
Colombia. Corte Constitucional. (2011). Sentencia C-598 de 2011. Instituto de Información
Legal de Cornell. (sin fecha). Recuperado de https://www.law.cornell.
edu/wex/presumption
De la Rosa, G. E. (2014). Prueba judicial y práctica del Discovery en la Unión Europea.
Revista internacional de Doctrina y Jurisprudencia, (5). 1-32. DOI: http://dx.doi.
org/10.25115/ridj.v3i5.1792.
Estados Unidos. Congreso. (1975). Reglas Federales de la Prueba.
Estados Unidos. Congreso. (2018). Reglas Federales de Procedimiento Civil. Recuperado
de https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practiceprocedure/
federal-rules-civil-procedure
Estados Unidos. Corte Suprema de Justicia. Corte de Apelaciones del Noveno Circuito.
(2016). Sentencia Barton v. ADT Sec. Services Pension Plan.
George, T. E. & Sherry, S. (2009). What every law student really need to know. An introduction
to the study of law. Nueva York: Aspen Publishers.
Galanter, M. (2004). The vanishing trial: An examination of trials and related matters
in federal and state courts. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1(3), 459-570.
Hans, V. (2007-2008). Judges, juries and scientific evidence. Journal of law and policy, (16).
Mullenix, L. (2014). El descubrimiento de la verdad y la regla de la proporcionalidad.
En García Posada, J. J. (ed.), Derecho procesal: dilemas sobre la verdad en el proceso
judicial (pp. 49-84). Medellín: Universidad Pontificia Bolivariana, Corporación
Universitaria Lasallista.
Nanda, V. P. (1998). Access to justice in United States. American Journal of comparative
law, 46(1), 503-530. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/46.suppl1.503
Peña Mardonez, C. (2017). Traduciendo el Discovery al civil law chileno: su aporte a
los procesos de reforma civil. Ius et Praxis, 23(2), 79-120.
Strong. S. I. (2013). ¿Por qué la armonización de los procedimientos del civil law y el
common law es posible en los litigios pero no en el arbitraje? En Universidad
de Medellín (ed.), Proceso judicial y cultura (143-170). Medellín: Universidad de
Medellín.
Strong, S. I. (2015). Writing Reasoned Decisions and Opinions: A Guide for Novice,
Experienced, and Foreign Judges. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 1.
Strong, S. I., Gómez, K. F. & Piñeiro, L. C. (2016). Comparative law for Spanish-English
speaking Lawyers. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Strier, F. (1997). The educated jury. A proposal for complex litigation. De Paul Law
Review, 47.
Taruffo, M. (2009). La prueba. Artículos y conferencias. Santiago: Editorial Metropolitana.
Walton, D. (2014). Burden of proof, presumption and argumentation. Nueva York:
Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D. (sin fecha). Presumption, burden of proof and lack of evidence. Recuperado
de https://www.dougwalton.ca/papers%20in%20pdf/08IADA.pdf
Woolf, L. H. (1997). Civil Justice in the United Kingdom. The American Journal of Comparative
Law, 45(4), 709-736. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/841013
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2020 Dimaro Alexis Agudelo-Mejía
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Estudios de Derecho is governed by the following regulation: Political Constitution of Colombia, article 61; Law 23 of 1982, articles 1 and 2; Law 44 of 1993, chapter II, article 6 and chapter IV, article 51; Law 599 of 2000 through which the Penal Code is issued, articles 270, 271 and 272. In addition, the journal is governed by the guidelines of the National Copyright Directorate and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) for Colombia. Finally, it abides by Rectoral Resolution 21231 of 5 August, 2005, through which the Statute on Intellectual Property is issued.
Authors who publish in Estudios de Derecho continue to retain their rights, however, they should bear in mind that the contents of the journal are under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-ShareAlike license. In this sense, The material created may be distributed, copied and exhibited by third parties if they credit it. No commercial benefit can be obtained.
