O raciocínio probatório entre a prova livre e a prova legal: um modelo de normatização do juízo de fato por standards, regras de segunda ordem, critérios e diretrizes

Is fact-finding susceptible to normative regulation within a procedural system aligned with the rationalist tradition of evidence? Guided by this question, this article examines the possibility of adopting an intermediate system between a free proof system and a legal proof system. In view of the ideal of affording greater legal certainty to fact-finding without constraining judicial reasoning in light of each case, the formulation of norms on fact-finding is presented as a strategic decision (a second-order decision, following Sunstein and Ullmann-Margalit), whose effects must be weighed in light of the aims pursued. A systematization of the normative propositions applicable to fact-finding into four types is then proposed (standards of proof, second-order proof rules, evidence evaluation criteria, and evidence evaluation guidelines), which operate in different evidentiary contexts and perform distinct functions. Finally, examples and a summary chart of the four types are presented. It is hoped that the proposed systematization will contribute to the rationality and legal certainty of fact-finding without resulting in a system of fixed evidentiary weights.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal
Published
2026-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v12i3.1589
Primary Topic
Legal processes and jurisprudence
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
article

O raciocínio probatório entre a prova livre e a prova legal: um modelo de normatização do juízo de fato por standards, regras de segunda ordem, critérios e diretrizes

Gisela Aguiar Wanderley
Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal
Legal processes and jurisprudence
article

O raciocínio probatório entre a prova livre e a prova legal: um modelo de normatização do juízo de fato por standards, regras de segunda ordem, critérios e diretrizes

Gisela Aguiar Wanderley
article en

Abstract

Is fact-finding susceptible to normative regulation within a procedural system aligned with the rationalist tradition of evidence? Guided by this question, this article examines the possibility of adopting an intermediate system between a free proof system and a legal proof system. In view of the ideal of affording greater legal certainty to fact-finding without constraining judicial reasoning in light of each case, the formulation of norms on fact-finding is presented as a strategic decision (a second-order decision, following Sunstein and Ullmann-Margalit), whose effects must be weighed in light of the aims pursued. A systematization of the normative propositions applicable to fact-finding into four types is then proposed (standards of proof, second-order proof rules, evidence evaluation criteria, and evidence evaluation guidelines), which operate in different evidentiary contexts and perform distinct functions. Finally, examples and a summary chart of the four types are presented. It is hoped that the proposed systematization will contribute to the rationality and legal certainty of fact-finding without resulting in a system of fixed evidentiary weights.

Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual PenalVol. 12(3)
Openalex Percentile: Top 5%
Legal processes and jurisprudence
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon