El conocimiento privado del juez y la valoración de la prueba pericial en la responsabilidad penal médica

Determining medical criminal responsibility for wrongful conduct, specifically homicide and personal injury, the judge faces his lack of medical preparation and the impartiality inherent in the criminal prosecutorial court system, with inescapable demands of expert evidence, generating questions suc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Perafán Cardona, Pastor Camilo, Arenas Jaramillo, Sebastián, Luna, David
Format: Article
Language:Spanish
Published: 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=7955929
Source:Nuevo derecho, ISSN 2011-4540, Vol. 17, Nº. 28, 2021 (Ejemplar dedicado a: Enero - Junio), pags. 1-21
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
Summary: Determining medical criminal responsibility for wrongful conduct, specifically homicide and personal injury, the judge faces his lack of medical preparation and the impartiality inherent in the criminal prosecutorial court system, with inescapable demands of expert evidence, generating questions such as, does it imply that the critical analysis of the opinion finds limits in the frame of reference itself? or is the judge empowered to consult literature not cited in the expertise and question its postulates? This invites the approximation of the object of proof of the typicity in medical liability, the importance of the expert evidence to prove guilt, the guarantees of impartiality and contradiction, sound criticism and the rules of jurisprudence around the assessment of the expert evidence, to conclude by questioning whether the judge can turn to the specialized literature to decide apart from the opinions given in court? and propose that the solution is the duty of the judge to assess the construction and the final concept carried out by the expert from a sound criticism, being possible to depart from it only when its construction is not suitable, clear or exact, does not have sufficient acceptance scientific or not consistent.