skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 157147 Find in a Library
Title: Extrinsic Evidence, Social Science and Constitutional Adjudication in the United States: Implications for Litigation Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Author(s): C P Manfredi
Date Published: 1992
Page Count: 30
Sponsoring Agency: Canada Department of Justice
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8, Canada
Publication Number: WD1992-1e
Sale Source: Canada Department of Justice
Justice Bldg. Kent St., at Wellington St.
Ottawa ON K1A 0H8,
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Language: English
Country: Canada
Annotation: The U.S. experience with extrinsic evidence in constitutional adjudication is reviewed, and implications for the Canadian court system are discussed.
Abstract: Extrinsic evidence is used by governments to defend the rationality of laws and policies, by plaintiffs to establish constitutional violations, and by courts to formulate complex remedies. Extrinsic evidence can be introduced directly by the parties to a constitutional dispute, indirectly by amicus curiae participants, and through judicial notice. In extrinsic evidence cases, government lawyers face three strategic disadvantages: relative lack of expertise, unequal access to experts and evidence, and incentive to lose on the part of defendant agencies and institutions. Nonetheless, rights-based constitutional review inevitably generates litigation in which extrinsic evidence becomes important, and both litigants and courts must be sensitive to this fact. In comparison to adversaries, government litigators usually lack the expertise and resources of plaintiff counsel, frequently confront a community of social science experts who may not be willing to provide testimony or information for the government's case, and sometimes represent defendant agencies and institutions that actually have an incentive to lose in such types of litigation. 93 footnotes
Main Term(s): Foreign courts
Index Term(s): Canada; Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Court procedures; Expert witnesses; Lawsuits; Rules of evidence; US/foreign comparisons
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.