This paper presents a theory of reasoning with evidence in order to determine the facts in a criminal case. The focus is on the process of proof, in which the facts of the case are determined, rather than on related legal issues, such as the admissibility of evidence. In the literature, two approaches to reasoning with evidence can be distinguished, one argument-based and one storybased. In an argument-based approach to reasoning with evidence, the reasons for and against the occurrence of an event, e.g., based on witness testimony, are central. In a story-based approach, evidence is evaluated and interpreted from the perspective of the factual stories as they may have occurred in a case, e.g., as they are defended by the prosecution. In this paper, we argue that both arguments and narratives are relevant and useful in the reasoning with and interpretation of evidence. Therefore a hybrid approach is proposed and formally developed, doing justice to both the argumentbased and the narrative-based perspective. By the formalization of the theory and the associated graphical representations, our proposal is the basis for the design of software developed as a tool to make sense of the evidence in complex cases.

No abstract

Abstract. This paper describes an approach to legal logic based on the formal analysis of argumentation schemes. Argumentation schemes -a notion borrowed from the field of argumentation theory -are a kind of generalized rules of inference, in the sense that they express that given certain premises a particular conclusion can be drawn. However, argumentation schemes need not concern strict, abstract, necessarily valid patterns of reasoning, but can be defeasible, concrete and contingently valid, i.e., valid in certain contexts or under certain circumstances. A method is presented to analyze argumentation schemes and it is shown how argumentation schemes can be embedded in a formal model of dialectical argumentation. The approach also provides insight into the role of critical questions.

No abstract

Assumptions are often not considered to be definitely true, but only as prima facie justified. When an assumption is prima facie justified, there can for instance be a reason against it, by which the assumption is not actually justified. The assumption is then said to be defeated. This requires a revision of the standard conception of logical interpretation of sets of assumptions in terms of their models. Whereas in the models of a set of assumptions, all assumptions are taken to be true, an interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions must distinguish between the assumptions that are actually justified in the interpretation and those that are defeated.In the present paper, the logical interpretation of prima facie justified assumptions is investigated. The central notion is that of a dialectical interpretation of a set of assumptions. The basic idea is that a prima facie justified assumption is not actually justified, but defeated when its so-called dialectical negation is justified. The properties of dialectical interpretation are analyzed by considering partial dialectical interpretations, or stages, and by establishing the notion of dialectical justification. The latter leads to a characterization of the existence and multiplicity of the dialectical interpretations of a set of assumptions. Since dialectical interpretations are a variant of stable semantics, the results are relevant for existing work on nonmonotonic logic and defeasible reasoning, on which the present work builds.Instead of focusing on defeasible rules or arguments, the present approach is sentence-based. A particular innovation is the use of a conditional that is prima facie justified (just like other assumptions) instead of an inconclusive conditional.