The Need to Establish the Daubert Standard as the Criteria of Admissibility for Decisions on Ruling and Practice of Expert Evidence in Colombia
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15648/legem.1.2021.2986Keywords:
evidence admissibility, rule and practice, evidence standard, expert evidence, probative valueAbstract
The main objective of this article is to analyze the need to establish extra evidentiary standards for the admissibility criteria set forth in the General Code of Procedure (CGP) on expert witness evidence. With this objective in mind, the fundamental contribution developed in this paper is to indicate that the criteria established in the Daubert case should be included in the Colombian judicial process. The problem question revolved around defining whether it is necessary to establish additional admissibility criteria to the Daubert standard for the rule and practice of expert evidence in the Colombian process. Thus, it could be concluded that, in addition to the standards to be taken into account by the judge, there are three additional standards to be included that deal with technical aspects of experts’ opinion.
References
Derecho jurisdiccional. Bosch.
Bertel Oviedo, A. (2009). Derecho probatorio: partes general y especial. Grupo Editorial Ibáñez.
Buglioli, M. & Ortún, V. (2001). Decisión clínica. Cómo entenderla y
mejorarla. Springer Verlag Ibérica.
Colín Sánchez, G. (1970). Derecho mexicano de procedimientos penales. Editorial Porrúa.
Devis Echandía, H. (2006). Teoría general de la prueba judicial. Editorial Temis.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2005). Prueba y verdad en el derecho (2ª ed.).
Marcial Pons.
Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2007). La valoración racional de la prueba. Marcial Pons.
Flores Prada, I. (2005). La prueba pericial de parte en el proceso civil. Editorial Tirant lo Blanch.
Florian, E. (1982). De las pruebas penales (J. Guerrero, Trad.). Editorial Temis.
Font Sierra, E. (1974). La prueba de peritos en el proceso civil español. Hispano Europea.
Guasp, J. (1947). Comentarios a la ley de enjuiciamiento civil. Editorial M. Aguilar.
Haack, S. (1982). Filosofía de las lógicas (A. Antón, Trad.). Ediciones
Cátedra. http://untref.edu.ar/icaatom/uploads/r/archivo-sibun
tref/2/9/2934/Filosofia_de_las_logicas.pdf
Parra Quijano, J. (2007). Manual de derecho probatorio (16ª ed.).
Librería Ediciones del Profesional LTDA.
Parra Quijano, J. (2018). La prueba pericial en el código general del
proceso. Código General del Proceso anotado. Vol. 2.
Sierra Domínguez, M. (1991). De la prueba de los peritos. Edersa.
Stephen, J. F. (1876). A Digest of the Law of Evidence. Macmillan and
Co. (Consultado en Berkowitz D. & Thorne S. (1978). Classics
of English Legal History in the Modern Era. Garland Publishing, Inc.).
Vázquez Rojas, M. C. (2014). La prueba pericial. Entre la deferencia
y la educación [Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Girona]. CORE.
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/132556518.pdf
Vázquez Rojas, C. (2015). La admisibilidad de las pruebas periciales y la racionalidad de las decisiones judiciales. Doxa. Cuadernos de Filosofía del Derecho, (38), 101-130. https://doi.
org/10.14198/DOXA2015.38.04
Vázquez Rojas, C. (2016). La prueba pericial en la experiencia estadounidense. El caso Daubert. Jueces para la democracia.
Información y debate, (86), 92-112. http://www.juecesdemocracia.es/2016/07/17/revista-jueces-la-democracia-informacion-debate-numero-86-julio-2016/
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors’ will retain their copyright and they will guarantee to Justicia journal the right of first publication of their work, subject to Creative Commons Attribution License simultaneously that allows to third parties to share the work whenever their ,Author and its first publication in this journal. Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements to distribute the version of the published work (eg to be deposited in an institutional telematic file or published in a monographic issue) provided the initial publication is indicated in this journal.
a 