According to Allen and Pardo, ‘relative plausibility’ is the best explanation of judicial proof; and the process to identify a best explanation would be, in short, holistic and comparative. My work is a plea for clarification of some items that would constitute their theory, before I (or anyone) give a holistic explanation of them and compare their account with alternatives. I raise three issues: the epistemological relevance of the empirical data used, the kind of holism argued and the fact-finder’s cognitive capacities role in their account.
AccatinoD (2014) Atomism and holism in the evidentiary justification of judicial decisions. Isonomía40: 17–59.
2.
AllenRJLeiterB (2001) Naturalized epistemology and the law of evidence. Virginia Law Review87: 1491–1550.
3.
AllenRJPardoMS (2019) Relative plausibility and its critics. International Journal of Evidence and Proof23(1-2): 5–59.
4.
CohenJL (1977) The Probable and The Provable. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
5.
DiamondSSMurphyBRoseMR (2012) The ‘kettleful of law’ in real jury deliberations: Successes, failures, and next steps. Northwestern University Law Review106(4): 1537–1609.
