Consideraciones dogmáticas y probatorias sobre el dolo en el proceso penal

El análisis del dolo supone dilucidar tres discusiones íntimamente relacionadas. La primera es la cuestión conceptual referida a la definición dogmática del dolo y supone revisar sus teorías y críticas a fin de precisar el contenido del dolo y determinar si es un hecho que puede ser probado o si es una categoría normativa de imputación penal. Ello es relevante para la cuestión epistemológica sobre cuál es el objeto de prueba en la atribución o imputación del dolo y consiste en precisar si en el proceso penal el thema probandum son ciertos estados mentales eventualmente relevantes para la imputación dolosa o los indicios susceptibles de subsumirse en un catálogo abierto y referencial de indicadores normativos. La tercera discusión se refiere a la cuestión epistemológica sobre el método mediante el cual se acreditan dichos estados mentales o indicios y presupone precisar si el enlace que conecta las pruebas con la hipótesis a probar puede sólo consistir sólo en una generalización epistémica o si, además, las presunciones y los conceptos (como el dolo) y sus teorías son especies de inferencias probatorias.   The analysis of mens rea involves elucidating three closely related discussions. The first is the conceptual issue refered to the dogmatic definition of mens rea and involves reviewing its theories and criticisms in order to specify the content of mens rea and determine if it is a fact that can be proven or if it is a normative category of criminal accusation. This is relevant to the epistemological question about what is to be prooved in the attribution or imputation of mens rea and consists in specifying whether in the criminal trial the thema probandum are certain state of mind that may be relevant to the mens rea imputation or the indications that can be subsumed in a open and referential catalog of regulatory indicators. The third discussion refers to the epistemological question involving the method by which state of minds or indications are prooved and presupposes specifying whether the link that connects the evidence with the hypothesis to be tested can only consist of an epistemic generalization or if, in addition, presumptions and concepts (such as mens rea) and their theories are types of evidentiary inferences

An account of events, by definition, involves an understanding of the actors: A prova na arbitragem comercial internacional

What could justify the paper on evidence in international commercial arbitration? What is so peculiar about this instance of the realisation of the law that it explains the autonomy of the subject of evidence when it takes place in international commercial arbitration? Isn't the general theory of evidence applicable to the demonstration of reality in a certain type of proceedings – arbitral proceedings – whenever they concern commercial and plurilocalised disputes? These are the central questions around which the text will gravitate. We will emphasise what we believe to be the determining factor in the development of a praxis that does not cause a break between the general theory of evidence developed for civil cases tried in state courts and the central vectors of evidence as known in international commercial arbitration: the context of the exercise of jurisdiction.O que pode justificar a publicação de um texto sobre a prova na arbitragem comercial internacional? O que haverá de peculiar nesta instância de realização do Direito que explique a autonomização da matéria da prova tal quando realizada em arbitragem comercial internacional? Não será a teoria geral da prova aplicável à demonstração da realidade num certo tipo de processos – os processos arbitrais – sempre que estes respeitem a litígios comerciais e plurilocalizados? Estas as questões centrais, em torno das quais gravitará o texto. Acentuaremos aquele que julgamos ser o factor determinante no desenvolvimento de uma praxis que, não provocando uma ruptura entre a teoria geral da prova, desenvolvida para os processos civis julgados em tribunais estaduais, e os vectores centrais da prova, tal como conhecidos na arbitragem comercial internacional: o contexto do exercício da jurisdição

The chemical expert report on the determination of gunshot residue: Minimum content, expert reasoning and due process

This article aims to analyze an expert report produced by the legal chemistry area in the determination of gunshot residue. The purpose is to determine if it has the necessary information to evaluate the quality of the expert knowledge, considering the demands of due process. To achieve this purpose, first of all, the content of the report will be described in relation to procedural regulations and expert practice, focusing on its formal aspects. In the second part, emphasis will be placed on the substantial aspects, highlighting the content of the specialized knowledge present in the expert report, and evaluating the quality of the expert knowledge in the particular case, trying to understand the logic underlying the expert reasoning. Finally, in the third part, reflections and recommendations for improvement will be presented, related to the previous points, with the purpose of contributing to the quality of specialized knowledge, which is essential to guarantee an adequate legal process.Este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar un informe pericial producido por el área de química legal en la determinación de residuos de disparo. La finalidad es examinar si el mismo cuenta con la información necesaria para evaluar la calidad del conocimiento experto, considerando las exigencias del debido proceso. Para alcanzar este propósito, en primer lugar, se describirá el contenido del informe en relación con la normativa procesal y la práctica pericial, con un enfoque en los aspectos formales del mismo. En la segunda parte, se hará hincapié en los aspectos sustanciales, resaltando el contenido del conocimiento especializado y evaluando la calidad del conocimiento experto en el caso particular, tratando de comprender la lógica subyacente en el razonamiento pericial. Finalmente, en la tercera parte, se presentarán reflexiones y recomendaciones de mejora, relacionadas con los puntos anteriores, con el propósito de contribuir a la calidad del conocimiento especializado, esencial para garantizar un proceso legal adecuado

Implicit Biases, Explicit Injustice: Epistemic Effects on Unconscious Biases in Evidential Reasoning in Mexico

En este artículo se realiza un análisis epistemológico del impacto de los sesgos implícitos en el razonamiento probatorio en el contexto del derecho procesal penal mexicano. Se argumenta que estos sesgos afectan la justificación de las creencias, además de causar daños a individuos y a la sociedad, dificultando el logro de metas epistémicas del proceso, tales como la búsqueda de la verdad o el esclarecimiento de los hechos. Se sostiene que las personas juzgadoras son epistémicamente responsables por sus creencias implícitamente sesgadas, incluso si i) no tienen control directo sobre ellas, ii) su influencia es inconsciente y iii) no tienen acceso al conocimiento científico sobre los sesgos. Como ejemplo, se analiza la influencia de dichos sesgos en la valoración de la prueba testimonial según la jurisprudencia mexicana. También se proponen dos soluciones procesales para mitigar su impacto epistémicamente negativo.This article provides an epistemological analysis of the impact of implicit biases on evidentiary reasoning within the context of Mexican criminal law. It argues that these biases affect the justification of beliefs, causing harm to individuals and society, and hindering the achievement of epistemic goals of the process, such as the pursuit of truth or fact-finding. It posits that judges are epistemically responsible for their implicitly biased beliefs, even if i) they do not have direct control over them, ii) their influence is unconscious, and iii) they lack access to scientific knowledge about biases. As an example, the influence of these biases on the evaluation of testimonial evidence according to Mexican jurisprudence is analyzed. Two procedural solutions are also proposed to mitigate their negative epistemic effects

What Does It Mean to be "Plausible"?

This article explores what ‘plausible’ means in statements about legal evidence and shows that it is highly ambiguous. Twelve different meanings of ‘plausibility’ are identified and distinguished from each other by definitions. Contrary to what has been claimed by some evidence scholars (Allen and Pardo, 2019), the article shows that all uses of ‘plausibility’ can be captured in terms of probability. The author also shows that the exposed ambiguity is deeply problematic for legal practice and legal scholarship. The fundamental principle of justice that ‘like cases should be treated alike’ is endangered when the standard of proof is expressed in an ambiguous way, and the scientific testability of hypotheses about legal fact-finding is undermined when these hypotheses are formulated in ambiguous terms

As an introduction to the section on purpose of the expert reports' content

Introducción de los artículos de la sección "Ciencia para el proceso"Introduction to the articles of the "Science for legal proceedings" sectio

Deficiencies in a psychological expert opinion: Critical analysis in regard to a family law case

The present work aims to analyze an expert opinion in the field of psychology, conducted on the parties involved in a family law dispute governed by the civil procedural law of one of the federal entities in Mexico. In legal conflicts of this nature, the presentation and examination of psychological expert evidence are quite common. However, despite its importance, the introduction and examination of this evidence often have deficiencies that directly impact the evaluation stage. While, in some cases, these deficiencies are correctable, there are others where it is practically impossible to extract information that contributes to the search for truth. This analysis of a specific case serves to highlight errors that are frequently made when introducing an expert psychological opinion into the legal process.El presente trabajo tiene como objetivo analizar un dictamen pericial en materia de psicología, practicado a las partes involucradas en una controversia en materia familiar, regida bajo la ley procesal civil de una de las entidades federativas de México. En conflictos judiciales de esta naturaleza, el ofrecimiento y desahogo de pruebas periciales en psicología es bastante común. Sin embargo, pese a su importancia, la incorporación al proceso, así como el desahogo de esta prueba suele tener deficiencias que impactan directamente en la etapa de valoración y que, si bien, en algunos casos son subsanables, existen otros donde es prácticamente imposible extraer información que abone a la búsqueda de la verdad. Este análisis de un caso en concreto sirve para señalar errores que frecuentemente se comenten cuando se introduce al proceso una prueba pericial a cargo de un experto en psicología

Understanding and preventing testimonial injustice in criminal proceedings: A comment on Federico Picinali “Evidential reasoning, testimonial injustice and the fairness of the criminal trial”

Reflecting on Federico Picinali’s arguments in «Evidential Reasoning, Testimonial Injustice and the Fairness of the Criminal Trial», this paper aims to further understanding of the scope and implications of epistemic injustice in criminal trials, and the problem of biased evidential reasoning more generally. It demonstrates how legal rules can result in dismissal or oversight of the defendant’s stock of knowledge; offers support for Picinali’s contention that testimonial injustice to defendants interferes with the right to a fair trial, while questioning whether the same can be said of testimonial injustice to complainants; and considers who can cause, and be a victim of, testimonial injustice. The paper goes on to evaluate Picinali’s proposed measures to prevent testimonial injustice in evidential reasoning, while advocating for law reform to restrict the admissibility of rap music as evidence in criminal trials

Document production and sanctions in the IBA rules on the taking of evidence in international arbitration: A critical analysis

El presente trabajo tiene el propósito de analizar críticamente el tema de la exhibición de las pruebas documentales en el arbitraje internacional y de las sanciones en caso de su incumplimiento, con especifica referencia a las reglas de soft law elaboradas por la IBA. Al hacer esto, el análisis se dividirá en dos partes. En la primera parte se abordarán algunos aspectos introductorios y generales de la práctica de la prueba documental en el arbitraje internacional, dentro del marco más amplio de la discusión actual sobre los poderes de case management de los árbitros. En la segunda parte se analizará más precisamente la cuestión (tratada desde un punto de vista teórico) de las consecuencias por el incumplimiento del orden de exhibición del documento, criticando, por su naturaleza antiepistémica, la así llamada «inferencia adversa» (adverse inference), prevista por el artículo 9(6) de las Reglas de la IBA y tratando de conceptualizar esa consecuencia, al menos en ciertos casos, como una sanción en sentido estricto.This article aims to critically analyze document production and the sanctions for failing to comply with exhibition orders in international arbitration, with a special focus on the soft law rules elaborated by the IBA. In so doing, we will divide our analysis into two parts. In the first one, we will tackle some introductory and general aspects of the taking of documentary evidence in international arbitration, in the framework of the more general and current debate on the casemanagement powers of arbitrators. In the second one, we will focus more precisely our attention on the theoretical issue of the possible consequences for the failure to comply with the order of exhibit. We will criticize the so-called «adverse inference», established by art. 9(6) of the IBA Rules, due to its anti-epistemic nature, arguing, by contrast, in certain cases, its truly punitive character

Understanding Epistemic Injustice as Contributory Injustice: A Comment on Picinali's Argument

This paper offers some further support to Federico Picinali’s argument, in «Evidential Reasoning, Testimonial Injustice and the Fairness of the Criminal Trial», that a trial is unfair when assessments of relevance and probative value includes an epistemic injustice, namely a testimonial injustice. It has been argued that there are barriers to establishing testimonial injustice in specific cases, such as the ones Picinali surveys. This paper argues that even if we accept that there are concerns about establishing the occurrence of a testimonial injustice in the cases Picinali identifies, we can reformulate the epistemic injustice that renders the trial unfair as a contributory injustice. Reformulating the epistemic injustice as a contributory injustice evades the concerns we might have with establishing testimonial injustice allowing Picinali’s broad argument that a trial is unfair when an assessment of evidence includes an epistemic injustice—contributory or testimonial—to remain intact. This reformulation also offers new propositions on how to combat epistemic injustice