Tuesday, July 28, 2009

The Best Currently-Available Set of MarshalPlan (Evidence Marshaling) Stacks

The stacks (files) found below are the evidence marshaling stacks that so far exist in MarshalPlan -- and each one of these stacks (or files) is the equivalent of a method of marshaling, or organizing, evidence. You can run those stacks with Revolution Player. (To download a non-Windows-operating-system player, go here.) I suggest you download all of the stacks found below before you run them with the Revolution Player -- because then the stacks will link to each other and you can then see MarshalPlan 3.0 in its full glory.

Analysts (Users)
Legal Actors
Event Actors
Witnesses
Catalogue of All Persons
Case Theory
Evidence of Material Facts
Evidence for and against Material Facts
Legal Argument
Legal Rules
Legal Source Material
Loose Thoughts
Network Manager (I suggest you begin by using Revolution Player to run this stack.)
Possibilities
Elimination of Possibilities
Questions & Issues
Raw Evidence
Records
Actor Scenario
Case Scenario
Tangible ("Real") Evidence
Actor Time Line
Case Time Line
Time Line for Tangible Evidence
Witness Time Line
Narrative, Story-Telling, and Rhetoric
Investigation and Proof Time Line
Witness Credibility
Probative Value (a/k/a "Argument from Evidence to Factual Hypothesis," or "Factual Inference" proper)

&&&

N.B. As always, please keep in mind that MarshalPlan is not a prototype of a real-world real-time operating system. In its present configuration, it is more akin to a tinker-toy, suitable for use mainly in the classroom.

&&& &&&
The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Monday, July 27, 2009

How Do You Pass a Bad Check for $25 Million?

Answer: use a drive-through bank window.

This is the clever method used by Solomon Dwek, the undercover informant in the recent wave of FBI arrests of 44 individuals, mostly for public corruption in New Jersey. See Kelly Heyboer & Maryann Spoto, "Dwek's role as FBI informant was 'worst-kept secret in New Jersey,'" nj.com (July 26, 2009). The article recounts:

In 2006, as his real estate deals began to unravel and loans came due, Dwek rolled into the drive-thru window at the PNC Bank in Eatontown. He gave the teller a bogus $25.2 million check, according to prosecutors. The teller cashed the check after Dwek assured the bank that the money to cover the charge would be wired into his account soon.

Dwek allegedly transferred more than $22 million of the money to another bank to pay off loans before PNC caught the fraud. He was arrested after he attempted to cash a second bogus $25 million check at another PNC bank.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Saturday, July 25, 2009

True Friendship?

Leona Beldini, the deputy mayor of Jersey City, was among the New Jersey public officials arrested by federal authorities for taking bribes from a person who Beldini and other public officials thought was a real estate developer but was in fact acting as an undercover agent. Mayor Jerramiah Healy later suspended the Jersey City officials [including, presumably, Beldini] who were charged with such misdeeds. Mayor Healy said that the charges were shocking. But he also said:
"I have full faith in Leona [Beldini]," Healy said. "She’s a good friends of mine — was and will be."
Now why do you suppose Healy said that? Was it out of friendship? Or did his profession of perpetual friendship for Beldini have something to with the allegation that he and Beldini met twice with the person who was pretending to be a developer and who made the payment to Beldini?

Note: On July 24 the AP reported:

The complaint targets Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini, who is charged with taking 20-thousand dollars in bribes.

Beldini served as Healy's treasurer for his 2009 mayoral campaign, and she is accused of collecting cash on Healy's behalf, in exchange for promising to fast-track the cooperating witness -- or c-w's -- development projects.

Throughout the complaint, Healy is referred to as 'J-C Official 4.'

In one recorded exchange, "Beldini responded that she could say one thing about J-C Official 4. J-C Official 4 remembered J-C Official 4's friends, and J-C Official 4's word was gold."

Later the complaint describes how, "at a diner in Jersey City, defendant Cheatam and defendant Shaw accepted $10,000 in cash each from the c-w, including $5,000 a piece to "convert" into contributions for J-C Official 4."

Edward Cheatem [sic], a city official, and Jack Shaw, a political consultant, have also been charged with taking bribes.

Healy has suspended all of the Jersey City workers charged in the corruption investigation without pay.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Paul Mulshine: "Guns don't cause crime; diners cause crime"

Truth is relative. The truth in New Jersey: "Guns don't cause crime; diners cause crime"

Go here.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Friday, July 24, 2009

Jerramiah Healy, Mayor of Jersey City

Jerramiah Healy, currently the mayor of Jersey City, New Jersey, admits he is a target of the federal investigation that has thus far led, this July, to the arrest of 44 persons, including the deputy mayor of Jersey City and the president of the New Jersey City council. A July 24 AP article states in part:

NEWARK -- There is a significant development involving another politician in this case.

Jersey City Mayor Jeremiah [sic] Healy is acknowledging that he is also under investigation.

We want to be clear that he has not been charged.

Healy released a statement on Friday saying that he did nothing wrong.

But based on the criminal complaint, it is clear that Healy met with the key government witness in March of this year about development projects in Jersey City.

The complaint targets Jersey City Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini, who is charged with taking 20-thousand dollars in bribes.

Beldini served as Healy's treasurer for his 2009 mayoral campaign, and she is accused of collecting cash on Healy's behalf, in exchange for promising to fast-track the cooperating witness -- or c-w's -- development projects.

Throughout the complaint, Healy is referred to as 'J-C Official 4.'

In one recorded exchange, "Beldini responded that she could say one thing about J-C Official 4. J-C Official 4 remembered J-C Official 4's friends, and J-C Official 4's word was gold."

Later the complaint describes how, "at a diner in Jersey City, defendant Cheatam and defendant Shaw accepted $10,000 in cash each from the c-w, including $5,000 apiece to "convert" into contributions for J-C Official 4."

Edward Cheatem, a city official, and Jack Shaw, a political consultant, have also been charged with taking bribes.

Healy has suspended all of the Jersey City workers charged in the corruption investigation without pay.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Sunday, July 19, 2009

A Tutorial on Witness Credibilty

If you have a Windows machine and use the Firefox browser, you may be able to look at the stack Witness Credibility. (Alternatively, you can follow the instructions provided here.)

N.B. Much of what I know about credibility -- almost but not quite everything I know about the logic of credibility -- I learned from David Schum.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Evidence Marshaling for Investigation & Litigation: Cloud Computing

I'm starting to put MarshalPlan 3.0 (evidence marshaling software) on the web.

Please see here and here

  • You will need to download a plug-in. If the plug-in icon does not appear, please go here and download the plug-in.
  • In a few weeks I will post about 20 more evidence marshaling stacks on the web.

    Comments are welcome.

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Organized Crime May (Partially) Defeat New Japanese Mixed-Court System

    "Lay judges may not try mob hit," Japanese Times Online (July 18, 2009):
    Prosecutors will ask a court not to try a gangster under the lay judge system for fear of possible reprisals against citizen judges, prosecution sources said Friday.
    A rough parallel to the fate of trial by jury in Diplock (terrorist) cases in Northern Ireland during "The Troubles."

    Should Japanese officialdom have a bit more faith in its citizenry and a little less belief in the power of its organized crime?

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Thursday, July 16, 2009

    EATR?

    EATR = Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot

    Yes, we will (will we?) owe this to DARPA. See here

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Sunday, July 12, 2009

    How Many Evidence Marshaling Strategies Are There?

    You will forgive me, I trust, if I return to MarshalPlan once again. You see, I think of MarshalPlan as my baby.

  • Other people who may not wish to be publicly acknowledged, deserve part of whatever credit is due for the creation of MarshalPlan. It is possible my former collaborators think me slightly daft for continuing to develop MarshalPlan. If they do, I would humbly beg to differ with them. I admit I am "possessed" by the MarshalPlan project. But this is not only because I think MarshalPlan may be very useful to legal professionals such as litigators and investigators, but also because I think MarshalPlan says something important -- fundamental -- about human knowledge.
  • The following are the evidence marshaling stacks that so far exist in MarshalPlan -- and each one of these stacks (or files) is the equivalent of a method of marshaling, or organizing, evidence:

    Analysts (Users)
    Legal Actors
    Event Actors
    Witnesses
    Case Theory
    Evidence of Material Facts
    Evidence for and against Material Facts
    Legal Argument
    Legal Rules
    Legal Source Material
    Loose Thoughts
    Network Manager (I suggest you begin by using Revolution Player to run this stack.)
    Possibilities
    Elimination of Possibilities
    Questions & Issues
    Raw Evidence
    Records
    Actor Scenario
    Case Scenario
    Tangible ("Real") Evidence
    Actor Time Line
    Case Time Line
    Time Line for Tangible Evidence
    Witness Time Line
    Narrative, Story-Telling, and Rhetoric
    Investigation and Proof Time Line
    Witness Credibility
    Probative Value (a/k/a "Argument from Evidence to Factual Hypothesis," or "Factual Inference" proper)

    &&&

    You can run the above stacks with Revolution Player. (To download a non-Windows-operating-system player, go here.)

    &&&

    N.B. Did you notice that time plays an essential role in many of the evidence marshaling strategies found above?

    &&& &&&
    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    A Timely Reminder of a Masterpiece about the History of Probability

    It is often said that the history of probability begins in the eighteenth century, perhaps in the seventeenth century. The following masterful and sweeping survey of the history of probability (in many fields, including law) sets the record straight:

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Thursday, July 09, 2009

    Some Evidence of a Cause of the Concentrated Trial: A Lesson from Japan

    Gavin Blair, "A new day for Japanese justice, Here comes the (lay) judge," GlobalPost (June 14, 2009):

    In a radical change to Japan's modern justice system, lay judges will now be involved in trials of serious crimes: Six lay judges will sit on the bench alongside three professional judges at trials.

    {snip, snip, snip}

    One beneficial side effect of the changes will likely be a faster criminal justice process, as the current practice of spreading trials out over months, and sometimes years, will end.

    “Judges sometimes work on dozens of cases at a time, sitting one day a month on each trial, spending the time between reading case documents,” [Hiroshi] Kawatsu [a trial attorney who heads the Japan Federation of Bar Associations’ (JFBA) Research Office for Judicial Reform] explained. The need for lay judges to return to their normal lives will make this impractical, and Japan is thus adopting a more focused approach to pre-trial procedures and evidence.

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Japan's Mixed-Court Trials Soon to Swing into Action

    See "134 so far to stand trial by lay judges," Japan Times Online (June 22, 2009).

    The very first trial involves a killing caused by plastic bottles filled with water:

    The first [trial], involving a 72-year-old man charged with murdering a neighbor, is scheduled for Aug. 3 to 6 at the Tokyo District Court.

    Katsuyoshi Fujii allegedly stabbed Haruko Bun, 66, a South Korean resident of Japan, to death May 1 on a road in Adachi Ward.

    Fujii has allegedly told the police he lost his temper after some plastic bottles filled with water in front of his home were knocked over by a motorcycle owned by Bun's son.

    Many people place plastic bottles around their garages, gardens and planters under the false belief that light reflected from them will scare off stray cats.

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Monday, July 06, 2009

    Quantifying Doubt in Criminal Trials

    In his article "In Two States, a Lower Bar for Conviction" Adam Liptak of the New York Times writes:
    A unanimity rule [for jury verdicts in criminal trials] would seem to reinforce the requirement that prosecutors prove their cases beyond a reasonable doubt. Two jurors out of 12, if you do the math, represent about 16 percent of the panel. That’s a fair amount of doubt.
    This eminently silly statement proves that you can do sums and fractions and still produce ridiculous propositions. For example, would Mr. Liptak conclude that if a jury of twelve convicts, it is certain that the accused is guilty? Or does he think that each juror's amount of doubt should be measured and then averaged to determine how much doubt there "was"? Perhaps a successor to C.P. Snow should write a book called THE THREE CULTURES. There are people who are in the sciences. There are people who are in the humanities. Then there are people who...
    Robert McNamara, who died today, also knew how to do his sums and fractions back in the 1960s. But his computations (which involved the number of enemy fatalities in the Vietnam war) were, for various reasons, largely meaningless.

    The rest of Mr. Liptak's article is more interesting (and sensible).

    If Justices Scalia and Thomas cling to their original intent mantra, they will rule that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts for convictions in criminal trials. The question is whether three other Justices will endorse this bottom line.

    Incidentally, wouldn't Scalia and Thomas also have to endorse a unanimity requirement and twelve member juries for the trial by jury that is guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment in some civil trials?

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Sunday, July 05, 2009

    Release of MarshalPlan 3.0

    MarshalPlan (my evidence marshaling software) now has a complete set of evidence marshaling stacks.
    In particular, MarshalPlan now has a "probative value" stack (as well as recently-developed stacks for (i) assessment of the credibility of witnesses, (ii) laying out the sequence of important actions and events during prelitigation investigation, during pretrial investigation, and during the process of proof at trial, and (iii) developing and assessing narratives, stories).
    The new "probative value" stack supports the development of inferential argument based on evidence and the assessment of the force of such argument.



  • Although I have now provided a (helpful) stack for assessing the probative value of evidence, I do not pretend that the "probative value" stack provides a comprehensive explanation of methods of sketching argument about and from evidence. For detailed discussion of the methods that might be used for this purpose, see Special Issue on Graphic and Visual Representations of Evidence and Inference in Legal Settings, 6 Law, Probability and Risk Nos. 1-4 (Oxford University Press, 2007).
  • I am sometimes called a Bayesian. However, the probative value stack I have developed uses no numbers whatever. This reflects my view -- one that I share with David Schum -- that the structuring of argument about and from evidence is logically prior to any quantitative assessment of argument about and from evidence. Moreover, I believe that one can usually meaningfully assess the strength of evidential inference without using numbers to express one's judgment about the degree of the uncertainty that attends any argument about and from evidence.



  • &&&

    Please follow the instructions found below to download MarshalPlan 3.0.



    &&&

    Years ago David Schum and I developed the notion of an evidence marshaling system. We laid out the underlying theory of this evidence marshaling system in A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation. We developed a kind of computer embodiment, or computer-based expression, of our idea of an evidence marshaling system. Eventually we decided to call our system "MarshalPlan."
    More than one year ago I released MarshalPlan 2.2. This moniker -- MarshalPlan 2.2 (now 3.0) -- amounts to a bit of self-mockery: MarshalPlan 2.x is not a prototype of a working application suitable for "real-time" use. Far from it! However, MarshalPlan 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, and 3.0 are more than mere scratchings on a page that state in words (text) how a MarshalPlan application might work.
    MarshalPlan 3.0 is a software application based on the user-friendly programming language Revolution Enterprise(tm). This application -- MarshalPlan 3.0 -- illustrates -- with images, fields, buttons (links), and so on -- how a computer program to support the marshaling and assessment of evidence in preparation for possible trials and also for the conduct of trials, might work.



    &&&

    To retrieve MarshalPlan 3.0 for Windows click on this link. Download all of the Revolution stacks, including either the "Revolution Player" or "Revolution Media" (revMedia), into a single folder on your computer. These stacks all have the suffix "rev". (To make these stacks run properly you need a "Revolution Player" or "Revolution Media." If your computer doesn't use a Windows operating system, go here and download the version of the rev stacks you need and go here or here to download, respectively, the version of the Player or revMedia [Mac OSX or other] that you need.) Open the Revolution Player or RevMedia and then drag-drop the "Network.rev" icon and all other "rev" stacks onto the "Revolution Player" or revMedia icon; or run the Revolution Player or revMedia and, using the Player or revMedia, open all of the "rev" stacks. You should be in business now: the buttons, or links, in the various stacks should allow you to navigate between the stacks as well as within the stacks.



    &&&




    &&&

    SOME IMPORTANT CAVEATS: The software application that you will retrieve by clicking on the links found above has serious gaps and limitations, including the following:
    1. In the application itself there is only sparse explanation of the theories underlying the evidence marshaling strategies that are embedded in MarshalPlan 3.0.
    To get that some of that theory and those explanations (but not all of them) you will have to (i) read the article I mentioned earlier, A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation, and (ii) wander about my personal web site. If you want a truly comprehensive theory-laden explanation of MarshalPlan, you will have to invite me to give a leisurely talk (preferably on a tropical island or some other attractive venue).
    2. A few buttons and links don't work. When that happens, try other buttons and links. (Otherwise resort to expletives. You have my permission.)
    3. MarshalPlan 3.0 is not set up to be linked to a database. This is a most serious deficiency.
    But -- in my defense -- I repeat: MarshalPlan 3.0 is NOT a prototype of a working software application, suitable for use in real-time contexts.
    MarshalPlan is, instead, an elaborate visual illustration of some of the directions that development of software for marshaling evidence in legal settings should take.
    Having made this important disclaimer, I now add that MarshalPlan is creeping ever closer to being something akin to a genuine software prototype suitable for real-world and real-time use. The biggest bridge will be crossed when I manage to make the forthcoming "web-resident" version of MarshalPlan database-friendly. I must also find a way to standardize many of the fields in which users are invited and expected to add "data" such as dates and names. Please give me about six months to get these things done.



    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page
    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Assessing Inference by Picturing It

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Tuesday, June 30, 2009

    Do You Have to Know the Law of Evidence?

    No -- not if the trial judge likes you, and your opponent is as ignorant as you are about the law of evidence. See Successfully Introducing and Excluding Evidence without Knowing A Thing about the Legal Rules Governing the Admissibility of Evidence

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

    Argumentative interim summations in criminal trials

    United States v. Yakobowicz, 427 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2005) (in this interesting case a panel of the Second Circuit discusses at length interim summaries or summations in criminal trials and explains, at length, why it thinks such summaries are in general suspect in criminal cases; why the argumentative interim summaries in this case were impermissible on various legal grounds; why they deprived accused of his constitutionally-guaranteed right to a fair trial; and why they amounted to "structural error," requiring an automatic reversal; Sotomayor, J., dissented on the question of whether allowing such argumentative interim summaries by the prosecution error was a "structural" error but said, "I agree fully with the majority that the use of interim summaries in criminal trials is suspect at best. District courts should avoid this practice in light of the significant pressure the procedure can place on a defendant's Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and to put the government to its burden of proof before deciding whether and how to respond.")

    I wonder if there is a general agreement out there with the idea that arguments by counsel should be prohibited until after the submission of evidence because juries must keep an open mind.

    The Second Circuit panel said: "The traditional order of events at a criminal trial-opening statements, presentation of evidence, summations, and jury instructions-has numerous purposes. Among these purposes is to enable juries to avoid forming opinions before the close of evidence and deliberations. This is reflected in trial courts' repeated instructions to juries to keep an open mind until deliberations."

    &&&

    The dynamic evidence page

    Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law