The Architecture of Evidential Justification Between Atomism and Holism

Abstract

This paper explores the debate between atomistic and holistic approaches to legal evidential reasoning, with two aims. The first is conceptual and analytical: it draws some distinctions to clarify in what senses a conception of legal evidential reasoning can be holistic or atomistic. The second purpose is normative: it defends a normative conception for justificatory reasoning about questions of fact in judicial fact finding that notwithstanding its predominantly atomistic character includes some holistic elements.