The so-called conjunction paradox has bedeviled modern theorizing about burdens of proof ever since L Jonathan Cohen introduced the paradox some decades ago. Kevin Clermont makes a powerful argument that multivalent logic rather than bivalent logic describes the task that factfinders encounter when they engage in fact-finding in legal proceedings and that, if that's the case, the conjunction paradox disappears. See Kevin Clermont Conjunction of Evidence and Multivalent Logic (July 24, 2014).
"The defendants were convicted in 1990 for participating, with 30 or 35 other 14- to 16-year-olds, in a series of attacks in Central Park on the evening of April 19, 1989. The convictions were based largely on the defendants' own statements to the police. By far the most serious of the assaults was the horrific, bloody rape and near-murder of a 29-year-old female jogger, who survived, but without any memory of what had happened. The defendants served prison sentences from six to 13 years.
"Their convictions were vacated in 2002 when Matias Reyes, an imprisoned serial rapist and killer, volunteered that he had raped the jogger, a claim confirmed by DNA tests, and that he had done it alone, a claim resting solely on his credibility.
"In the lawsuit against the city that followed, police and prosecutors honored a court request not to discuss the case publicly. The defendants—now civil plaintiffs—launched a high-powered publicity campaign that has persuaded many that they were completely innocent, that they had been coerced and fed false stories by the police, and that they have been exonerated. None of these contentions is accurate."
This is a very interesting essay (but – perhaps this is a minor point – I have grave reservations about William Deresiewicz's suggestion to weight SAT scores to help offset the disadvantages that applicants from lower socioeconomic backgrounds suffer from).
Supporters of the practice present recordings as a solution for a host of problems, from police misconduct to false confessions. But while there are lots of good reasons to require them, they are hardly a panacea; in fact, the very same qualities that make them useful — their seeming vividness and objectivity — also risk making them misleading, and possibly even an inadvertent tool for injustice.
Every Fourth of July, some Americans sit down to read the Declaration of Independence, reacquainting themselves with the nation’s founding charter exactly as it was signed by the Second Continental Congress in 1776.
Or almost exactly? A scholar is now saying that the official transcript of the document produced by the National Archives and Records Administration contains a significant error — smack in the middle of the sentence beginning “We hold these truths to be self-evident,” no less.
The error, according to Danielle Allen, a professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, N.J., concerns a period that appears right after the phrase “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” in the transcript, but almost certainly not, she maintains, on the badly faded parchment original.
That errant spot of ink, she believes, makes a difference, contributing to what she calls a “routine but serious misunderstanding” of the document.
The period creates the impression that the list of self-evident truths ends with the right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” she says. ...
& & & & &
Tillers: It has often been said that in the 18th century and before English-speaking peoples were remarkably lackadaisical about punctuation. If this is true, whether or not the period was there in the original Declaration of Independence was less significant than it would be to a 21st Century mind – and 18th-century "sloppiness" about punctuation suggests that "close textual analysis" to ascertain the meaning or intent of 18th-century documents will go badly wrong if the text being studied is studied in isolation. Are you listening, original intent theorists?
Recent research has revealed that sequential lineup eyewitness identifications are less likely to falsely identify an innocent suspect as the culprit than are traditional simultaneous lineups. This has led numerous reformers to advocate (and many jurisdictions to accept) that the latter procedure should be replaced by the former. Clark has rightly pointed out that mis-identification data has another twist that almost everyone else has ignored; to wit, sequential lineups are much more likely to lead to false negatives than are simultaneous lineups.
If, as we have every reason to believe, both types of lineups are more likely to include a guilty party than to include only innocent suspects, there are powerful reasons to say, as Clark does, that sequential lineups are apt to have higher aggregate error rates than simultaneous lineups do. That should give pause to the growing movement to replace the latter by the former.
Professor Lotfi Zadeh sent the following message today to his discussion list (BISC):
How is fuzzy logic doing? A significant measure is the number of publications with "fuzzy" in title (annually). My administrative assistant, Ixel Chavez, has compiled the information which follows. Comments are welcome.
People v. LaFountain, 495 Mich. 968 (March 28, 2014):
In this case, defendant only disputes whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that her operation of a methamphetamine laboratory “involve[d] the possession, placement, or use of a firearm.” ... Contrary to the dissent's suggestion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with “conviction[s] built on inferences derived from circumstantial evidence ....” People v. Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417, 430, 646 N.W.2d 158 (2002). Indeed, it is important for appellate courts to remember that “[i]t is for the trier of fact, not the appellate court, to determine what inferences may be fairly drawn from the evidence and to determine the weight to be accorded those inferences.” Id. at 428, 646 N.W.2d 15.
Judge Viviano, joined by Cavanah and McCormack, dissenting:
I believe the jury's conclusion that the firearms were involved in the drug activity simply because they were nearby and could have been useful was, at best, speculation.Speculation, even based on the reasonable observation that defendant could have used the firearms for defense, is not sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction. For the due process right described in Jackson v. Virginia20 to be meaningful, there must be some point above which the evidence presented at a trial must rise in order to justify rational inferences of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.21[21. To be clear, I do not believe that this Court should resurrect the “no inferences upon inferences” rule that it wisely rejected in People v. Hardiman, 466 Mich. 417, 646 N.W.2d 158 (2002). In that case, we relied heavily on the analysis provided by Professor John Henry Wigmore, and as noted in Wigmore's treatise, the proper question concerning the sufficiency of evidence “is always whether, in view of all patterns of corroborating and contradicting evidence at all levels of all inferential chains, the final [fact to be proved] has been shown to the degree of likelihood required by the applicable standard of persuasion, whatever that may be.” 1A Wigmore, Evidence (Tillers rev.), § 41, p. 1138. In a criminal trial, in which the standard of persuasion is proof beyond a reasonable doubt and an individual's liberty is usually at stake, it is of the utmost importance that reviewing courts enforce the rule that “[j]uries are not permitted to convict a defendant based on speculation or mere suspicion.” United States v. Michel, 446 F.3d 1122, 1127 (C.A.10, 2006).]
MANSFIELD, John Howard Of Brookline, MA, died on April 10, 2014 at the age of 85. He was the John Watson Professor of Law (Emeritus) at Harvard Law School. Beloved husband of Maria Luisa Fernandez y Espinosa and loving brother of Charlotte Mansfield Murphy, Mary Elinor "Polly" Mansfield Post, and Diana Mansfield Russell. Son of the late Lewis Mansfield and Elinor Perkins of Boston. John was spiritual and intellectually active Roman Catholic, for fifty years he attended Saint Paul Church in Cambridge. Since 2012 he attended Saint Mary of the Assumption Parish in Brookline. John H. Mansfield earned his A.B. from Harvard College and his L.L.B. from Harvard Law School. He then served as clerk for Justice Royer Traynor of the Supreme Court of California and Justice Felix Frankfurter. He joined the faculty of Harvard Law School in 1958, retiring in 2008. He was completely dedicated to the Harvard Law School, where he worked for a half-century. He left a profound mark on the school, as well as on every student he taught and advised. Many of his much-loved foreign students have kept in touch with him and his wife over many years. He was, indeed, a member of the last great generation, together with his friends and colleagues Mark Howe, Philip Areeda and David Westfall. To be well prepared, on time, and appropriately dressed for class came naturally to John. His work in comparative and interdisciplinary areas put him in the avant-garde of legal thought. Professor Mansfield was known for his brilliant courses in constitutional law, evidence, and issues of church and state. As James A. Sonne wrote in The Harvard Law School Bulletin (Fall 2008): In his scholarship, he has written landmark works on the jury system, scientific evidence, law and religion, and legal history, and has written extensively on the law of India. All his work shows the dexterity of mind and clarity of thought of a true teacher-scholar. Funeral Mass at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, April 16 at St. Mary of the Assumption Church at 3 Linden Place in Brookline, 02445. A Novena at St. Mary will follow: May: Monday 26 at 9 a.m.; Tuesday 27 at 12:10 p.m.; Wednesday 28 at 12:10 p.m.; Thursday 29 at 12:10 p.m.; Friday 30 at 12:10 p.m.; Saturday 31 at 8 a.m. June: Sunday 1 at 10:30 a.m.; Monday 2 at 12:10 p.m.; Tuesday 3 at 12:10 p.m. In lieu of flowers, donations may be made to: *Holy Land Christian Ecumenical Foundation. www.hcef.org which is dedicated to helping Christians concerned about Christianity's survival in the Holy Land. *Saint Boniface Haiti Foundation. www.haithealth.org which provides healthcare to the poor in the rural area of Fond Des Blancs in Haiti through Saint Boniface Hospital. */Medecins Sans frontiers.www.doctorswithoutborders.org which is an international medical humanitarian organization treating people where the need is greatest
Joseph Laronge just wrote to say he "finally posted online training videos for [his] DCIT inference approach. They are posted onudemy.com. There are 31 lectures over about four hours along with supporting documents. … The following is a free coupon link for 100 participants that lasts until the end of this month:
Student of the law of evidence, evidence, inference, and investigation. Sometimes writes books. Sometimes writes articles. Sometimes tinkers with computer programs to support the marshaling of evidence for legal activities such as trials and pretrial discovery and investigation. And sometimes takes photographs.