Inference from evidence at the trial stage: a doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis within the global adversarial criminal justice system

Abstract

Evidential inference constitutes a fundamental pillar of the contemporary adversarial criminal justice system, as it enables the adjudicator to construct logical and legal reasoning based on evidence lawfully admitted into the proceedings. A documentary research design was employed, and the study is explanatory and bibliographical in nature. Results: Recent doctrinal analysis also highlights that a major challenge facing the adversarial criminal justice system is the avoidance of cognitive biases during the assessment of evidence. Research in the psychology of testimony, legal epistemology, and argumentation theory has demonstrated that inferential processes can be affected by prejudices, heuristics, and reasoning errors that compromise judicial impartiality. In response to this issue, contemporary legal scholarship advocates for strengthening the ongoing training of judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel in areas such as evidential reasoning, legal argumentation, and the analysis of scientific evidence, with the aim of enhancing the quality of judicial decisions and reducing the risk of wrongful convictions. Conclusion: Comparative analysis facilitates the identification of international trends regarding the assessment of evidence, standards of reasoning, and human rights protection, thereby contributing to the strengthening of a criminal justice system based on objective, rational, and duly substantiated decisions. Consequently, approaching evidentiary inference from a global perspective represents a significant contribution to research aimed at refining judicial practice and strengthening procedural safeguards in states that have adopted the adversarial model.