No. 2 (2024)
Artículos

Assessing the need for cultural expertise in civil proceedings: from court’s discretion to the duty to supplement the judge’s extra-legal knowledge

PDF HTML
  • Valentina Capasso
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/2862

Published 2025-01-03

Keywords

  • hard sciences,
  • soft sciences,
  • multicultural proceedings,
  • cultural expertise,
  • intellectual due process,
  • procedural due process,
  • cultural test
    • ...More
    Less

How to Cite

Capasso, V. (2025). Assessing the need for cultural expertise in civil proceedings: from court’s discretion to the duty to supplement the judge’s extra-legal knowledge. Revista Ítalo-Española De Derecho Procesal, (2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10.37417/rivitsproc/2862

Copyright (c) 2025 Valentina Capasso

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Abstract

 In recent years, the topic of expert evidence, usually dealt with having hard sciences in mind, has been enriched with a new profile, as the increasing frequency of multicultural proceedings has prompted the debate about the so-called cultural expertise. Obstacles to the use of this type of knowledge, however, result from a certain distrust in the usefulness of soft sciences for the judge and, more generally, from the strong discretion s/he has in deciding whether to admit expert evidence. Both factors will be critically discussed in the present paper.

 

PDF HTML

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Ciccozzi, A. & Decarli, G. (2019). Cultural Expertise in Italian Courts: Contexts, Cases, and Issues. Studies in Law, Politics, and Society, 35–54.
  2. Ciccozziv A. (2016). Forms of truth in the trial against the Commission for Major Risks: Anthropological notes. Archivio Antropologico Mediterraneo online, 65–81.
  3. Civinini, M. G. (2022). Cultural Expertise in Civil Law in Italy. NAVEIÑ REET: Nordic Journal of Law and Social Research, 107–122.
  4. Clark, K.B. (1953). The Social Scientist as an Expert Witness in Civil Rights Litigation. Social Problems, 5–10.
  5. Davidson, M. (1992). Law, Science, Causality, and Proof. NAPA Bulletin, 22–28.
  6. De Maglie, C. (2010). I Reati Culturalmente Motivati. Ideologie e Modelli Penali, Edizioni ETS
  7. Dore, I. (2016). Homo Juridicus. Culture as a Normative Order. Carolina Academic Press.
  8. Edmond, G. (2004). Thick Decisions: Expertise, Advocacy and Reasonableness in the Federal Court of Australia. Oceania, 190–230.
  9. Eisenberg, A. (2009). Reasons of Identity. A Normative Guide to the Political and Legal Assessment of Identity Claims. Oxford University Press.
  10. Foblets, M.-C. (2016). Prefatory Comments: Anthropological expertise and legal practice: about false dichotomies, the difficulties of handling objectivity and unique opportunities for the future of a discipline. International Journal of Law in Context, 231–234.
  11. FTI Consulting Report (2013). The Evolution of Expert Witness Law Under UK and US Jurisdiction, www.fticonsulting-asia.com/~/media/Files/apac-files/insights/white-papers/the-evolution-of-expert-witness-law-under-uk-and-us-jurisdiction.pdf.
  12. Geertz, C. (1983). Local Knowledge: Further Essays in Interpretive Anthropology. Basic Books.
  13. Hoehne, M.V. (2016). The strategic use of epistemological positions in a power-laden arena: anthropological expertise in asylum cases in the UK. International Journal of Law in Context, 253–271.
  14. Holden, L. (2011). Cultural Expertise and Litigation. Patterns, Conflicts, Narratives. Routledge.
  15. Holden, L. (2019). Cultural Expertise and Socio-legal Studies: Introduction. Studies in Law Politics and Society, 1–9.
  16. Holden, L. (ed.) (2023). Cultural Expertise, Law, and Rights: A Comprehensive Guide. Routledge.
  17. Kandel, R.F. (1992). How Lawyers and Anthropologists Think Differently. NAPA Bulletin, 1–4.
  18. Lawrence, S.N. (2001). Cultural (In)Sensitivity: The Dangers of a Simplistic Approach to Culture in the Courtroom. Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 107–136.
  19. Michelini, G. (2022). Cultural Expertise: Substantial and Procedural Framework. NAVEIÑ REET: Nordic Journal of Law and Social Research, 63–78.
  20. Monachini, S.C. (2020). Culturally Motivated Crimes: the Cultural Test in the Italian Jurisprudence. A Comparative Study. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 135–146
  21. Phillips, A. (2003). When Culture Means Gender: Issues of Cultural Defence in the English Courts. The Modern Law Review, 510–531.
  22. Renteln, A.D. (2004). The Cultural Defense. Oxford University Press.
  23. Ricca, M. (2014). Intercultural Law, Interdisciplinary Outlines Lawyering and Anthropological Expertise in Migration Cases: Before the Courts. E/C, 1–53.
  24. Rigby, P. & Sevareid, P. (1992). Lawyers, Anthropologists, and the Knowledge of Facts. NAPA Bulletin, 5–21.
  25. Riles, A. (1994). Representing In-Between: Law, Anthropology, and the Rhetoric of Interdisciplinarity. University of Illinois Law Review, 597–650.
  26. Rosen, L. (1977). The anthropologist as expert witness. American Anthropologist, 555–578.
  27. Ruggiu, I. (2017). Il giudice antropologo e il test culturale. Questione Giustizia, 216–232.
  28. Ruggiu, I. (2019a). Culture and The Judiciary: The Anthropologist Judge. Routledge.
  29. Ruggiu, I. (2019b). The “Cultural Test” as Cultural Expertise: Evolution of a Legal–Anthropological Tool for Judges. Laws, 1–15.
  30. Schauer, F. (2010)., Is There a Psychology of Judging? In Klein, D. - Mitchell, G. (ed.), The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making (pp. 103–120). Oxford University Press.
  31. Silvestri, G. (2000). Scienza e coscienza: due premesse per l’indipendenza del giudice. Diritto pubblico, 411–438.
  32. Sorgoni, B. (2012). ‘La stregoneria non è un concetto particolarmente complesso’. Storia di una richiesta di asilo. Primapersona, 74–81.
  33. Spellman, B.A & - Schauer, F. (2012). Legal reasoning. In Holyoak, K.J. & Morrison, R.G. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (pp. 719–735). Oxford University Press.
  34. Taruffo, M. (1990). «Libero convincimento del giudice: I) diritto processuale civile». Enciclopedia giuridica (vol. XVIII).
  35. Vetters, L. & Foblets, M.-C. (2016). Culture all around? Contextualising anthropological expertise in European courtroom settings. International Journal of Law in Context, 272–292.
  36. Volpp, L. (1994). (Mis)identifying Culture: Asian Women and the “Cultural Defense”. Harvard Women’s Law Journal, 57–101.
  37. Wiersinga, H. C. (2022). The Judge and the Anthropologist: Cultural Expertise in Dutch Courts. NAVEIÑ REET: Nordic Journal of Law and Social Research, 151–168.
  38. Zenker, O. (2016). Anthropology on trial: exploring the laws of anthropological expertise. International Journal of Law in Context, 293–311.

Update cookies preferences