Nine judges enter into dialogue with nine hypotheses about the proof of facts in criminal cases

Coloma Correa, Rodrigo
Carbonell Bellolio, Flavia
Alfaro M., Christian
Avilés M., Luis
Báez R., Danilo
Bugueño J., Claudia
Jorquera T., Mariela
Olave A., Mauricio
Soto G. Cristian
Rivera A., Virginia
Toledo C., José
Datos de publicación:
Ius et Praxis, Vol. 16, Nº2, 3-56, 2010
Valoración racional de la prueba - Estándar de prueba, - Verdad procesal - Calidad Epistémica de la prueba
This article formulates nine hypotheses concerning the proof of facts in criminal proceedings, which are analysed by nine judges of Chilean criminal Courts (Tribunal de Juicio Oral y de Garantía). Seven hypotheses aimed at describing different practices that take place in the courts and two of them concern how judges should act in certain hard cases. The matters are grouped in the following categories: a) scopes of the compromise that judges should have in order to operate with true stories as support of their decisions; b) difficulties that arise as consequence of the epistemic weakness of the evidence available in trials and the possible slants in their interpretation; c) requirements of the evaluation of the proof according to the sana crítica; and d) meaning that should have the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In this way, a dialogue between the system of beliefs of judges and of jurists takes place.