Anglo-American and Continental Systems: Marsupials and Mammals of the Law

Crime, Procedure and Evidence in a Comparative and International Context: Essays in Honour of Professor Mirjan Damaška

Volumn , Issue , 2008, Pages 395-414

  Lempert, Richard ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859031797     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (22)

1. M Damaška, The Faces of Justice and State Authority (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1986) 7.
2. M Damaška, Evidence Law Adrift (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1997) 92.
3. N Luhmann, Social Systems (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1995).
4. A Stinchcombe, Constructing Social Theories (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1987) ch 3.
5. S Macaulay, ‘Non-Contractual Relations and Business: A Preliminary Study’ (1963) 28 American Sociological Review 55-69.
6. M Weber, M Rheinstein (ed), On Law in Economy and Society, (Cambridge, Harvard UP, 1954).
7. A Kronman, Max Weber (Stanford, Stanford UP, 1983)
8. D Trubek, ‘Max Weber on Law and the Rise of Capitalism’ (1972) Wisconsin Law Review 720.
9. H Kalven Jr. and H Zeisel, The American Jury (Chicago, Univ of Chicago Press, 1966).
10. N Vidmar and V Hans, ‘The American Jury at Twenty-Five Years’ (1991) 16 Law & Social Inquiry 323.
11. T Eisenberg et al, ‘Judge-Jury Agreement in Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication of Kalven and Zeisel’s The American Jury’ (2005) 2 Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 171.
12. N Vidmar and VP Hans, American Juries: The Verdict (Amherst, Prometheus Press, 2007) ch 7.
13. S Machura, ‘Interaction Between Lay Assessors and Professional Judges in German Mixed Courts’ (2001) 72 International Review of Penal Law 451.
14. G Casper and H Zeisel, ‘Lay Judges in the German Criminal Courts’ (1972) 1 The Journal of Legal Studies 146-191.
15. SC Thaman, ‘Europe’s New Jury Systems: The Cases of Span and Russia’ (Spring 1999) 62 Law and Contemporary Problems 233. Austria, like Spain, requires its juries to give reasons for their verdicts.
16. M Wesson, ‘The Hillmon Case, the Supreme Court and the McGuffin’ in R Lempert (ed), Evidence Stories (New York, Foundation Press, 2006) 277-305.
17. HA Bedau and ML Radelet, ‘Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases’ (1987) 40 Stanford Law Review 21.
18. SR Gross, K Jacoby, DJ Matheson, N Montgomery and S Patil, ‘Exonerations in the United States 1989 Through 2003’ (2005) 95 Northwestern Law Review 529-533
19. MD Risinger, ‘Convicting the Innocent: An Empirically Justified Wrongful Conviction Rate’ (16 September 2006), available at SSRN: accessed 19 June 2008
20. SR Gross and B O’Brien, ‘Frequency and Predictors of False Conviction: The Problem, and Some Data on Capital Cases’ unpublished manuscript on file with the author [2007]. Estimates of the proportion wrongfully convicted range from about to 2% to about 5%.
21. Y Dezalay and B Garth, Dealing in Virtue: International Commercial Arbitration & the Construction of a Transnational Order (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1997).
22. L Bernstein, ‘Merchant Law in a Merchant Court: Rethinking the Code’s Search for Immanent Business Norms’ (1996) 144 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 1765.