author={Amalia Amaya},
  journal={Legal Theory},
  pages={1 - 43}
The aim of this essay is to develop a coherence theory for the justification of evidentiary judgments in law. The main claim of the coherence theory proposed in this article is that a belief about the events being litigated is justified if and only if it is a belief that an epistemically responsible fact finder might hold by virtue of its coherence in like circumstances. The article argues that this coherentist approach to evidence and legal proof has the resources to meet some of the main… Expand
The tapestry of reason : an inquiry into the nature of coherence and its role in legal argument
PART I. LEGAL COHERENTISM 1. Normative Coherence, Justification and Interpretation 2. Coherence, Evidence and Proof PART II. INTERDISCIPLINARY PERSPECTIVES 3. Coherence, Knowledge and JustificationExpand
Coherence and probability in legal evidence
The authors investigate to what extent an evaluation of legal evidence in terms of coherence is reconcilable with a probabilistic approach to legal evidence and give support to the claim (reductionism) that coherence can be translated into probability without loss. Expand
Are Fundamental Legal Reasons Internal? A Few Remarks on the Hartian Idea of the Internal Point of View
The fundamental reasons for officials to apply the criteria of validity available within the system’s rule of recognition, according to a basic reading of The Concept of Law, could be of variousExpand
Assessing Testimony and Other Evidential Sources in Law: An Epistemological Approach
In this paper we seek to address some platitudes surrounding the epistemic weight of testimony in legal domain by taking into account how epistemology explains the different but related phenomenon ofExpand
A system of communication rules for justifying and explaining beliefs about facts in civil trials
This paper addresses the problems of justifying and explaining beliefs about facts in the context of civil trials. The first section contains some remarks about the nature of adjudicativeExpand
A system of communication rules for justifying and explaining beliefs about facts in civil trials
  • J. Martins
  • Sociology, Computer Science
  • Artif. Intell. Law
  • 2020
A communication/argumentation system, consisting of fourteen intertwined rules of discourse, that embodies the fundamental epistemic principle according to which belief is updated given new evidence, is tailored for abductive inferences and is structured on fundamental concepts of civil procedural law is put forward. Expand
The explanationist revolution in evidence law
  • Amalia Amaya
  • Philosophy
  • The International Journal of Evidence & Proof
  • 2019
According to Allen and Pardo, the field of evidence law has experienced a revolution -in Kuhn's sense- from probabilism to explanationism, which they identify with the relative plausibility theory.Expand
The Internal Conviction in the Evaluating Evidence in the Constitutional Judicial Process
  • N. Shaptala
  • Political Science
  • Naukovij vìsnik Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav
  • 2019
The purpose of the study is a comprehensive analysis of virtually unexplored issues of the formation of the inner conviction of a judge of the body of constitutional jurisdiction as a subject ofExpand
Prueba libre, justificación epistémica y el noble sueño de los estándares de prueba
To establish objective standards of proof for the guidance of judicial decisions is one of the greatest yearnings of legal epistemology. Among the proposals, one of the most well-received seems to beExpand
A Survey of Approaches and Studies of Legal Argumentation in the Context of Legal Justification in Different Legal Systems and Countries
In the preceding chapters, several of the most important theories of legal argumentation have been examined. Apart from these theories in which a more or less complete account of legal argumentationExpand


Legal Justification by Optimal Coherence
This paper examines the concept of coherence and its role in legal reasoning. First, it identifies some problem areas confronting coherence theories of legal reasoning about both disputed questionsExpand
This article explores the relationships between legal proof and fundamental epistemic concepts such as knowledge and justification. A survey of the legal literature reveals a confusing array ofExpand
Coherence in Legal Justification
Coherence in reasoning is one important test of its soundness as reasoning. It is a test which is not fully satisfied by mere consistency, in the sense of an absence of self-contradiction. What I sayExpand
The Role of Coherence in Epistemic Justification
Among many reasons for which contemporary philosophers take coherentism in epistemology seriously, the most important is probably the perceived inadequacy of alternative accounts, most notablyExpand
Law and Coherence
This paper deals with the questions of whether the law should be coherent and what this coherence would amount to. In this connection so-called "integrated coherentism" is introduced. According toExpand
What price coherence
Coherence theories of knowledge and justification come in many varieties, but what unites them all is the view that a more coherent set of beliefs is epistemically preferable to a less coherent setExpand
Naturalized Epistemology and the Law of Evidence
This paper important developments in epistemology, and defends a theoretical framework for evidence scholarship from the perspective of naturalized epistemology. It demonstrates that naturalizedExpand
A Third View of the Black Box: Cognitive Coherence in Legal Decision Making
This Article presents a novel body of research in cognitive psychology called coherence-based reasoning, which has thus far been published in journals of experimental psychology. This cognitiveExpand
: The aim of this essay is to test the claim that epistemologists—virtue epistemologists in particular—have much to learn from virtue ethics. The essay begins with an outline of virtue ethics itself.Expand
Legal Certainty, Coherence and Consensus: Variations on a Theme by Maccormick
1. Solving a legal problem and deciding a case or a dispute on the basis of law are obviously not the same thing. Let us assume that the jurist is the person who puts legal problems (or puts them toExpand