It is known that the maxims of experience are presented as an unavoidable resource in the determination of factual assertions verified in trial. However, the fact that the judge must resort to certain common and general statements of what commonly happens, does not imply that he can support his assessment based on mere personal, subjective and intuitive considerations, much less that he can dispense with the duty of motivation in order to rationalize its correct use. For this reason, taking into consideration its disputed level of reliability, as well as its controversial linguistic and epistemic aspects, the present article aims to inquire into two fundamental aspects in relation to the maxims of experience: on the one hand, critically evaluate the notion previously alluded and propose its treatment within the so-called empirical generalizations and, on the other hand, determine how and in what way from such categorization they could be justified in order to promote its jurisdictional control. © Ramón Beltrán Calfurrapa.