Inferences in Judicial Decisions About Facts

doi:10.1017/9781009032049.010

9 - Inferences in Judicial Decisions About Facts

from Part III - On Evidential Inferences

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2022

Michele Taruffo

Edited by

Jordi Ferrer Beltrán and

Carmen Vázquez

Show author details

Jordi Ferrer Beltrán: Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona
Carmen Vázquez: Affiliation:
Universitat de Girona

Book contents

Get access

Summary

The essay deals with certain problems concerning the logical structure of evidential inferences. First of all, certain premises are expounded, mainly about the nature and the function of evidence in connection with the theories of judicial decisions. The core of the essay is then devoted to the analysis of such inferences, based mainly upon the inferential model proposed by Toulmin. This model is used in order to examine the most important and frequent situations in which complex sets of inferences are necessary to achieve a rationally justified decision. The final part is devoted specifically to the problem of statistical evidence in general and in cases of toxic torts.

Keywords

Final judgments judicial decisions inferential model matière pénale in the European case-law Non bis in idem

Type: Chapter
Information: Evidential Legal Reasoning
Crossing Civil Law and Common Law Traditions
, pp. 159 - 170

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009032049.010 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Selected Bibliography

Ferrer Beltrán, J. (2007). La valoración racional de la prueba, Madrid; Barcelona; Buenos Aires: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar

Frosini, B. V. (2002). La prove statistiche nel processo civile e nel processo penale, Milán: Giuffrè.Google Scholar

Garbolino, P. (2014). Probabilità e logica della prova, Milan: Giuffrè.Google Scholar

González Lagier, D. (2005). Quaestio Facti, Ensayos sobre prueba, causalidad y acción, Lima; Bogotá: Palestra.Google Scholar

Green, M. D., Freedman, D. M. and Gordis, L. (2011). Reference Guide on Epidemiology, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd ed., Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar

Haack, S. (2014). Evidence Matters. Science, Proof and Truth in the Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kaye, D. H. and Freedman, D. (2011). Reference Guide on Statistics, in Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, 3rd ed., Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.Google Scholar

MacCrimmon, M. and Tillers, P. eds. (2002). The Dynamics of Judicial Proof. Computation, Logic, and Common Sense, Heidelberg; New York: Physica Verlag.Google Scholar

Nieva Fenoll, J. (2010). La valoración de la prueba, Madrid; Barcelona; Buenos Aires: Marcial Pons.Google Scholar

Taruffo, M. (2009). La semplice verità. Il giudice e la costruzione dei fatti, Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar

Taruffo, M. (2012). La prova nel processo civile, Milan: Giuffre.Google Scholar

Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Tuzet, G. (2013). Filosofia della prova giuridica, Torino: G. Giappichelli Editore.Google Scholar

Twining, W. (2006). Rethinking Evidence. Exploratory Essays, 2nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar