State v. Yepez: Admissibility and Relevance of Behavioral Genetic Evidence in a Criminal Trial

2021 ◽  
pp. appi.ps.2021002
Author(s):  
Nicholas Scurich ◽  
Paul S. Appelbaum
2010 ◽  
Vol 8 (6) ◽  
pp. 633-633
Author(s):  
J. Wilmer ◽  
B. Backus

1995 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 1126-1142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey W. Gilger

This paper is an introduction to behavioral genetics for researchers and practioners in language development and disorders. The specific aims are to illustrate some essential concepts and to show how behavioral genetic research can be applied to the language sciences. Past genetic research on language-related traits has tended to focus on simple etiology (i.e., the heritability or familiality of language skills). The current state of the art, however, suggests that great promise lies in addressing more complex questions through behavioral genetic paradigms. In terms of future goals it is suggested that: (a) more behavioral genetic work of all types should be done—including replications and expansions of preliminary studies already in print; (b) work should focus on fine-grained, theory-based phenotypes with research designs that can address complex questions in language development; and (c) work in this area should utilize a variety of samples and methods (e.g., twin and family samples, heritability and segregation analyses, linkage and association tests, etc.).


2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Duff

On 1 April 1996, a rather odd provision was introduced into the Scottish criminal justice process, namely a duty on both prosecution and defence to try to agree uncontroversial evidence in advance of criminal trial.1 As far as the writer is aware, such a provision is unique, although the philosophy underlying its introduction is not totally alien to inquisitorial systems of criminal justice.2 What is particularly peculiar about this duty is that there is no sanction for a failure, however unreasonable, to agree uncontroversial evidence.3 The lack of a sanction resulted from a concern that the creation of any penalty would impinge unjustifiably upon the rights of the accused. The intention in this article is to explore in detail the relationship between the duty to agree uncontroversial evidence and the position of the accused, and to suggest that the imposition of a sanction for a breach of this duty is not as problematic as was thought by those responsible for the legislation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document