In her acclaimed 1993 book Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt called putative WWII historian David Irving "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust denial." A prolific author of books on Nazi Germany who has claimed that more people died in Ted Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz, Irving responded by filing a libel lawsuit in the United Kingdom -- where the burden of proof lies on the defendant, not on the plaintiff. At stake were not only the reputations of two historians but the record of history itself.

An incisive overview of the current debate over the teaching of history in American schools examines the setting of controversial standards for history education, the integration of multiculturalism and minorities into the curriculum, and ways to make history more relevant to students. Reprint.

A chronicle of the author's five-year legal battle with writer David Irving, a prolific supporter of Holocaust denial, describes how the author and a team of experts defended against Irving's libel suit while exposing his distortions of history.

This collection of 12 original essays brings together two themes of American culture - law and race. Cases discussed include Amistad, Dred Scott, Regents v. Bakke and O.J. Simpson.

Is it right for historians to serve as 'expert witnesses' to past events? Since the end of the Cold War, a series of heated and politicised debates across Europe have questioned the 'truth' about painful episodes in the twentieth century. From the Holocaust to Srebrenica, inquiries and fact-finding commissions have become a common device employed by governments to deal with the pressure of public opinion. State-sponsored programmes of education and research attempt to encourage a common moral understanding of the lessons we learn from these painful memories. Contemporary historians have increasingly been drawn into these efforts since 1989 – in the courtroom, in the media, on commissions, as advisers. In a series of thoughtful essays, written by leading historians from across Europe, this volume considers the ethics and responsibilities that this new role entails. For anyone concerned with the role of the historian in contemporary society and how we arrive at a public understanding of history, this book is essential reading.

In many western countries, judicial decisions are based on “black letter law” – text-based, well-established law. Within this tradition, testimony based on what witnesses have heard from others, known as hearsay, cannot be considered as legitimate evidence. This interdiction, however, presents significant difficulties for Aboriginal plaintiffs who rely on oral rather than written accounts for knowledge transmission. This important book breaks new ground by asking how oral histories might be incorporated into the existing court system. Through compelling analysis of Aboriginal, legal, and anthropological concepts of fact and evidence, Oral History on Trial traces the long trajectory of oral history from community to court, and offers a sophisticated critique of the Crown’s use of Aboriginal materials in key cases. A bold intervention in legal and anthropological scholarship, this book is a timely consideration of an urgent issue facing Indigenous communities worldwide and the courts hearing their cases.

Is it right for historians to serve as 'expert witnesses' to past events? Since the end of the Cold War, a series of heated and politicised debates across Europe have questioned the 'truth' about painful episodes in the twentieth century. From the Holocaust to Srebrenica, inquiries and fact-finding commissions have become a common device employed by governments to deal with the pressure of public opinion. State-sponsored programmes of education and research attempt to encourage a common moral understanding of the lessons we learn from these painful memories. Contemporary historians have increasingly been drawn into these efforts since 1989 – in the courtroom, in the media, on commissions, as advisers. In a series of thoughtful essays, written by leading historians from across Europe, this volume considers the ethics and responsibilities that this new role entails. For anyone concerned with the role of the historian in contemporary society and how we arrive at a public understanding of history, this book is essential reading.

Origins of the English Jury. Originally published: Jersey City: Frederick D. Linn, [1875]. x, 388 pp. First published in England in 1852, Forsyth's History of Trial by Jury is the first full-scale historical account of the rise and growth of the jury system in England. Highly regarded, this book went through 37 editions. The first American edition, the source of this reprint, adds a number of notes and corrections to American references in previous editions. "An excellent summary of the opinions of leading legal writers as well as conventional historians regarding the origins of trial by jury was set forth by an Englishman, William Forsyth, in his excellent book entitled History of Trial by Jury. (. . .) Various writers, according to Forsyth, attribute the origin of the English jury to a recognition of the principle that no man ought to be condemned except by the voice of his fellow citizens. Forsyth committed himself to the belief that trial by jury did not owe its existence to any positive law, that it was not created by any Act of Parliament, but grew out of usages and customs of society that eventually passed away. Forsyth concluded his observations by saying that "the jury does not owe its existence to any preconceived theory of jurisprudence, but that it gradually grew out of forms previously in use and was composed of elements long familiar to the people in general." -- Robert H. White, 29 Tennessee Law Review 29 (1961-1962) 14 William Forsyth [1812-1899] was an English lawyer and author of many works on law and literature, including The History of Lawyers (1849).

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1852 edition. Excerpt: ... upon the presumption that payment has been made; and that which, in cases of prescription, prevents a disturbance of the right by presuming a grant from the owner of the fee. Section V. Utility of Written Pleadings. The English system of pleading is, in theory, admirably adapted for civil trials by the intervention of ajury; or perhaps it would be more correct to say, it has grown as an offshoot out of that system. For when the true principles of pleading are kept in view, a more efficacious instrument for enabling the jury to discharge their peculiar functions can hardly be imagined. The plaintiff makes a written statement of his cause of complaint, and to this the defendant puts in an answer, which consists, at his option, either of a denial of the facts alleged on the other side, or an admission of them with the addition of some other facts which, in his opinion, justify his conduct. Or he asserts, that taking all that is said by the plaintiff to be true, it gives the latter no legal right of action. In this case he is said to demur, and the question is obviously one of law, ready at once for the decision of the court. But if there is no demurrer, then the plaintiff must either reply or demur to the fresh matter of fact alleged by the defendant; and here again the defendant must either rejoin in like manner as he answered before, or he must demur. And so the pleadings proceed until the dispute between the parties ultimately resolves itself into the assertion of some fact, or facts, by the one side which are denied by the other, and it is the province of the jury to determine by their verdict which is right; or else a question of law is raised for the decision of the court. No matter how complicated the transaction may have been, it...