Abstract

This research addresses the gap between the expectations of judges and litigants about the academic literature on evidence law, and what this literature offers them. For the current state of the art, a case study was conducted using semi-structured interviews with judges, litigants, and scholars. The most relevant findings are: i) different perspectives about what is possible to achieve using evidence in judiciary procedures, especially, if the evidence of a trial can effectively determine what happened in the past; and ii) the types of academic knowledge expected by judges and lawyers, from practical stances, they expect in the literature the description of concrete trials cases with strategies to addressed them. These findings allow for rethinking how judges, lawyers and scholars narrow to relate with each other. Mostly, findings provide insights to address how to conceive professional training for who will participate in these communities.