Abstract
In an argumentation approach, legal evidential reasoning is modeled as the construction and attack of "trees of inference" from evidence to conclusions by applying generalizations to evidence or intermediate conclusions. In this paper, an argumentation-based analysis of the Simonshaven case is given in terms of a logical formalism for argumentation. The formalism combines abstract argumentation frameworks with accounts of the structure of arguments, of the ways they can be attacked and of ways to evaluate conflicting arguments. The purpose of this paper is not to demonstrate or argue that the argumentation approach to modeling legal evidential reasoning is feasible or even preferable but to have a fully worked-out example that can be used in the comparison with alternative Bayesian or scenario-based analyses.