Approccio narrativo vs approccio analitico alla ricostruzione del fatto nella sentenza di primo grado di fronte alla fisionomia del nuovo appello

The narrative coherence seems to be one of the most important qualities of the judgment’s justification. But it is an ambiguous feature. On one hand, it makes the decision very persuasive, because the judge releases the factual reconstruction through an effective storytelling. On the other hand, it is able to hide demonstration gaps, by using the consistency of a hypothesized fact with the factual context to affirm its existence in reality. On the contrary, the analytical approach to the judgment’s justification is able to show the actual demonstrative power of every single logical induction arising from every evidence. It may make the decision less persuasive, but much more accurate in “calculating” the actual strength of the evidence. Today the narrative coherence approach is more frequent than the analytical one. If the appeal needs to reduce the space for complaints, the first judgment needs to be analytical. If the first decision uses a narrative approach, the appeal needs to ensure of the appellant a wide space for complaints.