Publication Date



The ideology of the trial process puts discovery of truth
at center stage. This is made clear by the language of
Federal Rule of Evidence 102, upon which New Georgia
Rule of Evidence 24-1-1 is obviously based. Both of these
rules make the ascertainment of truth one of the two goals
of the trial (just determination being the other). However,
the term "truth" has been used in many ways in many
different contexts and traditions. What notion of truth did
the drafters have in mind?
This Article answers that question by reference to what
has come to be known as the "standard model" of the trial,
which is almost certainly what the drafters had in mind
when invoking truth. In the tradition of the standard
model, that truth is truth about "facts," usually conceived
of as details of the physical world provable by empirical
evidence. However, even restricting the notion of truth to
factual truth, many issues remain, particularly since there
are many varieties of such facts that stand as ultimate

issues under various substantive law doctrines. In the
second half of this Article, I put forth a preliminary
approach to a taxonomy of the law's facts.