Skip to main content
Log in

Formal Legal Truth and Substantive Truth in Judicial Fact-Finding -- Their Justified Divergence in some Particular Cases

  • Published:
Law and Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Truth is a fundamental objective of adjudicative processes; ideally, ‘substantive’ as distinct from ‘formal legal’ truth. But problems of evidence, for example, may frustrate finding of substantive truth; other values may lead to exclusions of probative evidence, e.g., for the sake of fairness. ‘Jury nullification’ and ‘jury equity’. Limits of time, and definitiveness of decision, require allocation of burden of proof. Degree of truth-formality is variable within a system and across systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Summers, R.S. Formal Legal Truth and Substantive Truth in Judicial Fact-Finding -- Their Justified Divergence in some Particular Cases. Law and Philosophy 18, 497–511 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006327205902

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006327205902

Navigation