skip to main content
Visitante
Meu Espaço
Minha Conta
Sair
Identificação
This feature requires javascript
Tags
Revistas Eletrônicas (eJournals)
Livros Eletrônicos (eBooks)
Bases de Dados
Bibliotecas USP
Ajuda
Ajuda
Idioma:
Inglês
Espanhol
Português
This feature required javascript
This feature requires javascript
Primo Search
Busca Geral
Busca Geral
Acervo Físico
Acervo Físico
Produção Intelectual da USP
Produção USP
Search For:
Clear Search Box
Search in:
Busca Geral
Or hit Enter to replace search target
Or select another collection:
Search in:
Busca Geral
Busca Avançada
Busca por Índices
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
SCIENCE AS SUPERSTITION: A MODEL STATUTE FOR CHANGED SCIENCE CLAIMS
Wasserman, Jack D
Duke law journal, 2023-11, Vol.73 (3), p.695
[Periódico revisado por pares]
Duke University, School of Law
Texto completo disponível
Citações
Citado por
Exibir Online
Detalhes
Resenhas & Tags
Mais Opções
Nº de Citações
This feature requires javascript
Enviar para
Adicionar ao Meu Espaço
Remover do Meu Espaço
E-mail (máximo 30 registros por vez)
Imprimir
Link permanente
Referência
EasyBib
EndNote
RefWorks
del.icio.us
Exportar RIS
Exportar BibTeX
This feature requires javascript
Título:
SCIENCE AS SUPERSTITION: A MODEL STATUTE FOR CHANGED SCIENCE CLAIMS
Autor:
Wasserman, Jack D
Assuntos:
Analysis
;
Evidence
;
Evidence (Law)
;
Evidence, Expert
;
Evidence, Scientific
;
Habeas
corpus
;
Laws, regulations and rules
;
Remedies
;
Superstition
;
Wrongful convictions (Law)
É parte de:
Duke law journal, 2023-11, Vol.73 (3), p.695
Descrição:
Over the last fifteen years, the legal community has increasingly recognized the role of "changed science" in contributing to wrongful convictions. Changed science wrongful convictions occur when the scientific evidence used to convict a criminal defendant at trial has since been questioned or repudiated by the greater scientific community. To address this issue, seven states have enacted "changed science writs," providing petitioners who may have been wrongfully convicted with a more reliable state habeas mechanism to challenge their convictions. Under these statutes, petitioners may bring challenges based on now-discredited scientific evidence, new guidelines, expert recantations, and scientific advancements. Importantly, these statutes have provided relief to changed science petitioners more consistently than habeas remedies that were previously available. To aid other states considering whether to enact their own changed science statutes, this Note analyzes the existing state writs and makes recommendations for future statutes. Then, this Note proposes a model statute that encapsulates those recommendations.
Editor:
Duke University, School of Law
Idioma:
Inglês
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Voltar para lista de resultados
Anterior
Resultado
2
Avançar
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Buscando em bases de dados remotas. Favor aguardar.
Buscando por
em
scope:(USP_VIDEOS),scope:("PRIMO"),scope:(USP_FISICO),scope:(USP_EREVISTAS),scope:(USP),scope:(USP_EBOOKS),scope:(USP_PRODUCAO),primo_central_multiple_fe
Mostrar o que foi encontrado até o momento
This feature requires javascript
This feature requires javascript
Anterior
Página Inicial
RSS
Feed
Políticas
Fale Conosco
Logos de Redes Sociais: 
Logos de Redes Sociais: