Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Argumentation in Context
Vol. 10:2 (2021) ► pp.245–261

A system of circumstantial evidence for fact-finding in criminal trial

| Kim Il Sung University
| Kim Il Sung University
| Kim Il Sung University
One of the most intractable, but significant problems in the theory of legal evidence concerns circumstantial evidence. The diversity and complexity of criminal cases cause some bottlenecks and difficulties in developing reasonable methods to prove the criminal issue by means of circumstantial evidence. The main purpose of this paper is to present more effective methods of fact-finding just by means of a system of circumstantial evidence (SCE). On the basis of analysis of the nature of circumstantial evidence, we find it necessary for the prosecution to construct a SCE in order to make a judge or jury accept the prosecution’s conclusion as the best explanation. We also present a reasonable logical structure of such a system and address some legal and logical problems in introducing it.
Keywords: criminal trial, fact-finding, inference to the best explanation, penultimate probanda , system of circumstantial evidence, ultimate probandum
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The nature of and necessity for a system of circumstantial evidence
    • 2.1What is a system of circumstantial evidence?
    • 2.2Why should all of circumstantial evidence be integrated into a system?
  • 3.The reasonable logical structure of a system of circumstantial evidence
    • 3.1Components of a system of circumstantial evidence
      • 3.1.1Ultimate probandum
      • 3.1.2Penultimate probanda
      • 3.1.3Lines of arguments directed to support the PPs
      • 3.1.4Alternative hypotheses (AH)
    • 3.2Criteria for organizing components of a system of circumstantial evidence
  • 4.Fundamental issues concerning the use of a system of circumstantial evidence
    • 4.1Analysis of circumstantial evidence obtained in a given case
    • 4.2Analysis of each inferential link on the structure of a system of circumstantial evidence
  • 5.Conclusion
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.20009.ri
References (15)
References
Abimbola, Kola. 2001. Abductive Reasoning in Law: Taxonomy and Inference to the Best Explanation. Cardozo Law Review 221 (2001): 1683.Google Scholar
Bentham, Jeremy. 1962. The Works of Jeremy Bentham. 71 vols. Edited by John Bowring. New York: Russell and Russell.Google Scholar
Davies, Leonard E. 1993. The Anatomy of Cross-Examination. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Fenton, N., Neil, M. & Lagnado, D. A. 2012. A General Structure for Legal Arguments About Evidence Using Bayesian Networks. Cognitive Science, 37(1), 61–102. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haack, Susan. 2014. Evidence Matters. Science, Proof, and Truth in the Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lipton, Peter. 2004. Inference to the Best Explanation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pardo & Allen. 2008. Juridical Proof and the Best Explanation. Law and Philosophy (2008) 271:223–268Google Scholar
Roberts, P. & Zuckerman, A. 2010. Criminal evidence (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, P. & Aitken, C. 2014. The Logic of Forensic Proof: Inferential Reasoning in Criminal Evidence and Forensic Science. PDF file, 22 May. 2017Google Scholar
Rowe, G. & Reed, C. 2007. Translating Wigmore Diagrams. PDF file, 9 Nov. 2017.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Barbara. 1993. Circumstantial Evidence: Of Law, Literature, and Culture. Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities, Volume 51, 219–241.Google Scholar
Walton, D. N. 2002. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. University Park, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
2008. Informal Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2013. Methods of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woods, J. 2006. Prosecuting Cartels without Direct Evidence of Agreement, OECD Policy Roundtables, 11 Sep. 2006Google Scholar