Abstract

This work analyses the role of evidentiary defences in criminal procedures using a general conceptual framework of defensive reasoning in judicial procedures. Within this type of defences, the claim of innocence in the Chilean regulation of the remedy of revision revives the theoretical debate concerning different standards of proof in criminal procedures. The study of decisions of the Supreme Court on this matter, in turn, reveals some contradictions and problems of overestimation of scientific or expert evidence offered to demonstrate the innocence of a (wrongly) convicted person by a final judgment. This work aims to show the need to have an evidentiary standard for innocence that serves as a coordinate for its proof in the remedy of revision in particular and in the criminal procedure in general.