Legal Argumentation and Evidence

393 Pages·2002·1.67 MB·English

by  Douglas N. Walton

LEGAL
ARGUMENTATION
AND
EVIDENCE
..........................9541$$ $$FM 07-24-0211:42:43 PS
..........................9541$$ $$FM 07-24-0211:42:43 PS
L E G A L
A R G U M E N TA T I O N
A N D
E V I D E N C E
Douglas Walton
the pennsylvania state university press
university park, pennsylvania
..........................9541$$ $$FM 07-24-0211:42:44 PS
LibraryofCongressCataloguing-in-PublicationData
Walton,DouglasN.
Legalargumentationandevidence/DouglasN.
Walton.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0-271-02177-2(cloth:alk.paper)
1.Law—Methodology. 2. Evidence
(Law). 3. Logic. 4. Reasoning. I. Title.
K213.W35 2002
347(cid:1).06—dc21 2001055956
Copyright(cid:1)2002ThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity
Allrightsreserved
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
PublishedbyThePennsylvaniaStateUniversityPress,
UniversityPark,PA16802–1003
Thepaperusedinthispublicationisbothacid-free
andtotallychlorine-free(TCF).Itmeetsthe
minimumrequirementsofAmericanNational
StandardforInformationSciences—Permanenceof
PaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,ANSI
Z39.48–1992.
..........................9541$$ $$FM 07-24-0211:42:44 PS
CONTENTS
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction xiii
1 SPECIALFEATURESOFARGUMENTATIONINA
LEGALSYSTEM 1
LegalRulesandParticularCases 3
InterpretationofStatutesandDocuments 6
StagesofaTrial 9
CivilLaw,CriminalLaw,andBurdenofProof 11
Evidence 15
RelevanceandAdmissibility 19
TestimonyofWitnesses 23
ExpertTestimony 25
Examination 26
DependenceonPrecedents 29
2 FORMSOFARGUMENTCOMMONLYUSEDINLAW 34
ArgumentfromAnalogy 35
ArgumentfromanEstablishedRule 39
ArgumentfromSignandAbductiveArgument 41
ArgumentfromPositiontoKnow 45
ArgumentfromVerbalClassification 51
ArgumentfromCommitment 53
PracticalReasoning 56
ArgumentfromPersonalAttack(AdHominemArgument) 59
TheSlipperySlopeArgument 63
OtherImportantFormsofArgument 66
v
..........................9541$$ CNTS 07-24-0211:42:52 PS
vi
contents
3 CIRCUMSTANTIALEVIDENCE 73
TheMcCormickCriterion 74
TheJewishClassicalLawCriterion 77
BenthamonCircumstantialEvidence 80
Patterson’sCriterion 83
WigmoreonDirectEvidenceandAutopticProference 85
WigmoreonCircumstantialandTestimonialEvidence 88
TheHopeHeadCase 91
TheFiveCriteriaSummarized 93
HowUsefulistheConceptofCircumstantialEvidence? 97
LogicalDifficultiesofCircumstantialEvidence 99
4 PLAUSIBILITYANDPROBABILITY 103
AThirdTypeofReasoning 105
PlausibilityandProbability 108
WigmoreonLogicalInferenceandProbativeValue 114
LockeonPlausibilityandDegreesofAssent 122
BenthamonPlausibilityandEvidence 124
PlausibilityandCasuistry 128
PlausibleReasoningintheAncientWorld 133
Carneades’TheoryofPlausibility 138
CriteriaandApplicationsofCarneades’Theory 141
WhytheNeglectofPlausibleReasoning? 146
5 THEDIALECTICALFRAMEWORKOFLEGAL
ARGUMENTATION 151
ImplicatureandConversationalPostulates 153
RationalPersuasionintheTrial 156
NormativeModelsofArgumentation 160
PersuasionDialogue 165
OtherTypesofDialogue 171
PeirasticDialogueandExtasticDialogue 174
RelevanceandDialecticalShifts 180
TheFairTrialandtheWitch-Hunt 184
..........................9541$$ CNTS 07-24-0211:42:52 PS
vii
contents
ADialecticalTheoryofStatutoryInterpretation 187
ArgumentationSchemes,Fallacies,andLegalLogic 194
6 APLAUSIBILISTICTHEORYOFEVIDENCE 199
ComponentsoftheNewTheory 200
EvidenceandArgument 205
TheProbativeFunction 214
AncientRootsoftheNewTheory 216
AdvantagesofThePlausibilisticTheory 223
ScientificEvidence 227
LogicalandLegalRelevance 230
LegalEvidence,Credibility,andPlausibility 234
ExpertTestimonyasEvidence 239
ProblemsandConclusions 243
7 RELEVANCEINPERSUASIONDIALOGUE 248
PersuasionDialogue 249
ChainingofArguments 252
RulesofDialogueandFallacies 258
TheFallacyofIrrelevantConclusion 260
TheMethodofArgumentExtrapolation 262
TestinganActualExample 266
HowtheMethodShouldbeApplied 269
QuestionsRaised 271
ApplicationtoLegalCases 274
ArgumentsandExplanations 279
8 MULTI-AGENTARGUMENTATIONANDCREDIBILITY 282
FormalDialogueSystemsinLogic 283
TheAdHominemandAdVerecundiamFallacies 287
LabeledDeductiveSystems 296
Multi-AgentSystems 298
AddingAgentstoFormalDialecticalStructures 301
EvaluatingFallaciesandBlunders 304
HowShould‘Agent’beDefinedinFormalDialectic? 306
..........................9541$$ CNTS 07-24-0211:42:53 PS
viii
contents
DialecticalShiftsandRelevance 308
TheSolutiontotheProblem 313
Conclusions 317
9 HOWTOUSETHENEWMETHOD 321
TheNewMethod 322
InferenceFormsandCriticalQuestions 325
ArgumentsDependingonTestimonyandCredibility 329
VerbalArgumentsandCriticalQuestions 334
TheTrialasPersuasionDialogue 335
ArgumentDiagramming 338
TheFormalStructureofDiagramming 342
FormalizingtheNewSystem 345
TheSubtletiesofPeirasticDialogue 348
TheCurrentProblemswithRelevance 350
Bibliography 357
Index 365
..........................9541$$ CNTS 07-24-0211:42:53 PS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Even though I have been working on legal argumentation and evidence for
some time, and have written some papers on the subject, the idea that there
was a need for a book on it was not at first apparent to me. What suggested
suchanideawasavisitto NotreDameLaw SchoolinNovember 1997, when
I gave an invited lecture on legal argumentation as part of a symposium on
legallogic.Thesymposium,andindividualconversationswiththeparticipants,
showedmetheneedforbringingtheresourcesofargumentationtheorytobear
onfundamentalproblemsinevaluatinglegalreasoning.Inparticular,itseemed
tomethatthekindofreasoningusedinevidencelawwasvirtuallyunexplored
territory, from a logical point of view, that badly needed some insight on its
underlying structure of argumentation. The participants at this symposium
showedmethatalthoughformallogicisimportantinidentifyingtheinferential
structuresoflegalreasoning,therewerevastareasoflegalargumentationthat
simplycriedoutforanalysesbythemorepracticalandcontextualcase-by-case
methodsofinformallogic.
IwouldliketothankKevinSaunders,RichardFriedman,JohnRogers,Rob-
ert Rodes, Patricia Sayre, Larry Alexander, Howard Pospesel, and Layman
Allen for their open-minded willingness to listen to a new and not widely ac-
ceptedpointofview.Chapter5 isbasedontheinvitedlectureIgaveatNotre
DameLawSchoolonNovember15,1997. Therevisedversionofthislecture
waspublishedas‘‘APragmaticModelofLegalDisputation,’’NotreDameLaw
Review 73 (1998): 711–35. Chapter 8 is based on parts (in revised form) of
threepreviouslypublishedpapers.Onepaperwasoriginallyaninvitedkeynote
lecturegivenattheInternationalConferenceonFormalandAppliedPractical
Reasoning, FAPR ’96, in Bonn, Germany, in June 1996. The paper later ap-
pearedinpublishedformas‘‘HowCanLogicBestBeAppliedtoArguments?,’’
LogicJournaloftheIGPL[InterestGrouponPureandAppliedLogic]5(1997):
603–14.Thesecondpaper,‘‘EthoticArgumentsandFallacies:TheCredibility
Function in Multi-Agent Dialogue Systems,’’ was published in Pragmatics and
ix
..........................9541$$ $ACK 07-24-0211:43:00 PS