Abstract

The work, as a contribution to a general theory of expert evidence in the legal field, clarifies some conceptual issues on the nature of such evidence and offers an overview of the role of experts based on well-known judicial decisions, also recalling that the «findings» of experts are most of the time in terms of probability; this leads to the question of probative standards against which to compare such probabilistic estimates and to the question of burdens of proof. The work argues that factfinders can correctly address «epistemic shoals», when expert opinions are dubious or divergent, by using the rules on burdens of proof once the relevant standards have been set.