Abstract
The criminal trial is adversarial. The prosecution necessarily advances a different position to the defendant. The defendant may for example say, 'I was at home with my wife at the time the robbery was committed.' At a minimum, the prosecution will argue that this statement is a lie. The prosecution may go further, claiming that the lie discredits other of the defendant's statements – the 'credibility lie' argument. Or the prosecution may go further still and argue that the lie was told in order to conceal the defendant's guilt. The defendant's 'guilty lie' is proof of their guilt. This article is concerned with the logical limits of the guilty-lie inference.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 377-413 |
| Journal | Current Legal Problems |
| Volume | 54 |
| Publication status | Published - 2001 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- Criminal Law and Procedure
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of ''Hoist with his own petard'? Guilty lies and ironic inferences in criminal proof'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver