Thin Empirics: Comment on Allen & Pardo Relative Plausibility and its Critics

Forthcoming, International Journal of Evidence and Proof

USC CLASS Research Paper No. CLASS19-5

USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 19-5

9 Pages Posted: 19 Dec 2018 Last revised: 28 Mar 2019

See all articles by Dan Simon

Dan Simon

University of Southern California Gould School of Law

Date Written: February 28, 2019

Abstract

In the target article of this symposium, Ron Allen and Michael Pardo advance the empirical claim that Relative Plausibility is the best account of juridical proof. While I tend to agree with the relative plausibility approach and endorse its holistic underpinnings, the article suffers from three weaknesses. First, the authors fail to substantiate their empirical claim. Second, the authors cite too casually to the Story Model. For all its brilliance, the story model provides too narrow a basis to serve as a general model of legal fact-finding. Finally, the authors fail to appreciate the adverse effects of holistic cognition on legal fact-finding.

Keywords: evidence, proof, story model, holistic decision making

Suggested Citation

Simon, Dan, Thin Empirics: Comment on Allen & Pardo Relative Plausibility and its Critics (February 28, 2019). Forthcoming, International Journal of Evidence and Proof; USC CLASS Research Paper No. CLASS19-5; USC Law Legal Studies Paper No. 19-5. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3289699 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3289699

Dan Simon (Contact Author)

University of Southern California Gould School of Law ( email )

699 Exposition Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90089
United States
213-740-0168 (Phone)
213-740-5502 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://weblaw.usc.edu/faculty/contactInfo.cfm?detailID=307

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
23
Abstract Views
166
PlumX Metrics