  Legal probabilism (LP) claims the degrees of conviction in juridical
fact-finding are to be modeled exactly the way degrees of beliefs are modeled
in standard bayesian epistemology. Classical legal probabilism (CLP) adds that
the conviction is justified if the credence in guilt given the evidence is
above an appropriate guilt probability threshold. The views are challenged on
various counts, especially by the proponents of the so-called narrative
approach, on which the fact-finders' decision is the result of a dynamic
interplay between competing narratives of what happened. I develop a way a
bayesian epistemologist can make sense of the narrative approach. I do so by
formulating a probabilistic framework for evaluating competing narrations in
terms of formal explications of the informal evaluation criteria used in the
narrative approach.
