ABSTRACT
In legal systems judges and juries are routinely confronted with competing cases which incorporate conflicting factual accounts. Many of the narratives are supported by the reports and testimony of experts. During a trial the judge is responsible for determining whether the evidence produced by the parties should be heard by the fact-finder. Decisions pertaining to the admissibility, relevance and sufficiency of evidence are all typically characterized as legal and, therefore, left to the discretion of the trial judge. In democratic states judges are sensitive to a range of ostensibly non-legal concerns, particularly responsibility to the public at large and the social legitimacy of legal institutions. The opportunity to observe all the evidence and hear the legal argument provides the trial judge with an important advantage in the production of a judgment capable of rationalizing the decision. The chapter provides few examples to show how judges confronted with competing evidentiary arrays endeavored to persuasively resolve litigation through their evaluation of evidence.
