The atypical evidence (i.e. the evidence not regulated by law) is a kind of evidence that assumes relevance in the Italian system, when – but not only – the process concerns technological innovations or instruments (e.g. videotaping, tracking by GPS, secret agent equipped for sound, trojan virus, AI tools etc.). A way to manage this peculiar evidence into the judgement is reinforced reasoning. In every juridical situation where this method is feasible, the judge has to adopt a decision technique structured by necessary steps, made up of arguments concerning salient aspects of the case/evidence under his examination and which must be appreciated in order to decide legitimately. These logic-argumentative passages increase the epistemological quality and the transparency of the assessment: and, overall, the value of the pronouncement. In particular, in front of atypical evidence, the decision maker has to cross three different steps – elaborated by jurisprudence and doctrine – to achieve the right conclusion: and this is precisely what we’re going to analyse in the paper.

Keywords: evidence, reinforced reasoning, #judgement #tehnologicalinnovations #legitimacy