Parts of the Alpha Version of the Evidence Module Have Been Unveiled

Parts of the alpha version of Spindle Law's evidence module have been unveiled. If you wish to see what's what and to contribute to the development of the module -- and I warmly encourage you to do so --, please write to info@spindleresearch.com for a password, and then go here and get to work!

N.B. The evidence module now accommodates state cases, and not just federal cases. This is a sea-change in the scope of the evidence module. The cases now found in the evidence module are exclusively federal cases. State cases are badly needed. Contribute them!

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

A Sickening Closing Argument

The ABA Journal and a post on the Legal Profession Blog recently mentioned an AP story about an appeal in a medical practice case in Montana. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in not granting a motion for a mistrial. See Heidt v. Argani, 2009 Montana 267 (August 14, 2009).

The story caught my eye for two distinct reasons. Let me explain.

In his closing argument in the trial of this medical malpractice action -- for alleged negligence by a medical doctor that caused the death of the plaintiff's husband -- plaintiff's counsel did what he and, apparently, Gerry Spence call "channeling"; that is, during closing argument plaintiff's counsel, in an effort (which was at least partially successful) to get the jury to imagine how the decedent must have felt (as a result of defendant's alleged negligence), spoke in the first person and pretended he was the dead husband and then spun out a narrative that showed -- supposedly -- how and what the husband felt as he was dying. (Plaintiff's counsel and, presumably, defense counsel saw no "other minds" problem here -- or other bodies problem, for that matter.)

But the channeling went further: plaintiff's counsel also described how and what the dead husband felt -- after his death -- as he was being autopsied and also after he was autopsied.

This argument about the husband's feelings after his death is in itself rather interesting. Does this part of the closing argument assume a fact not in evidence -- that dead people feel things after they're dead? (I assume that Montana law does not allow recovery for any such post-death pain and suffering.)

Well, if this is an example of channeling and if Gerry Spence is the originator of channeling, Spence has apparently invented a very effective form of trial advocacy. The closing argument by plaintiff's counsel was so effective that it apparently made one juror fall ill. The Montana Supreme Court's opinion recites:

After an extended closing, Heidt's attorney began to "channel" a description of the death of Heidt's husband, using phrases such as: "Then, oh my God, I'm dying." He then began describing being autopsied, including a description of being cut open and of his sorrow at not getting to see his children grow up.

This got to be more than some could bear. One of the jurors announced that she was "not okay" and that she thought she was going to pass out.

The upshot of this story was not (as you might expect) that defendant (the doctor) made a motion for a mistrial and that the Montana Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in not granting the motion. No, the upshot of this story was that the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the trial court erred in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

If you are puzzled by this, it is perhaps because I have not yet told you the full story.

The rest of the story is that the defendant doctor gave the ill juror medical assistance. Because of that, the Montana Supreme Court ruled, the trial court should have granted plaintiff's motion for a new trial.

Hence, although Plaintiff's counsel perhaps won a battle by "channeling," he lost the war at the trial: the jury returned a verdict for the defending doctor. But the determined counsel for plaintiff got the Montana Supreme Court to give his client a second bite at the apple.

You can imagine why the Montana Supreme Court ruled as it did. At least several jurors who were also nurses also gave the juror medical assistance and witnessed (apparently) the medical assistance provided by defendant (and also, incidentally[?], by plaintiff's co-counsel, who also happened to be a medical doctor!), the Montana Supreme Court felt that the jury would be prejudiced by this and that plaintiff could not have a fair trial. (In the course of explaining this point the Montana Supreme Court noted with approval a similar case in which a New York State court had explained that the jury would be prejudiced because it had seen "the doctor competently administer care and possibly save the life of a fellow juror." One wonders whether it was partly this evidence of the defendant doctor's medical competence in another instance that alone disturbed the New York and Montana courts.)

The Supreme Court of Montana explained its ruling this way:

The situations in [Campbell v. Fox, 113 Ill. 2d 354, 498 N.E.2d 1145, 101 Ill. Dec. 637 (Ill. 1986), [Reome v. Cortland Memorial Hospital, 152 A.D.2d 773, 543 N.Y.S.2d 552 (1989)] and in this case arose in a unique situation-a medical malpractice trial in which the jury gets to see the defendant doctor reacting to a real-life situation and apparently successfully delivering life-saving care. The effect of this on the jury is immeasurable, whether or not individual jurors admit it or even consciously know it. We agree with the courts in Campbell and Reome and their assessment of the substantial impact on the jury of observing the actual drama in the courtroom, when compared to listening to testimony describing past events during the trial itself.

Well, well. There is much grist for discussion here. One issue the court might have meditated about a bit is the question, "What's so bad about drama?" Cf. Old Chief, 519 U.S. 172 (1997). Given the event that triggered the chain of events that led to the appeal -- the "channeling" by plaintiff's counsel that made a juror fall ill --, this seems not an reasonable question to ask and address.

But the most remarkable thing about the appeal is that the Montana Supreme Court uttered not one word about whether plaintiff's "channeling" was proper or improper. (We don't know if defense counsel objected to the "channeling.")

In connection with the question of "channeling" about matters such as a dead man's presumed feelings during his own autopsy, a post-appeal comment by plaintiff's counsel (noted in the ABA story) provides food for thought:

Harman [plaintiff's counsel] said the closing argument was the first time he tried “channeling” the likely thoughts of a decedent, and he hasn’t had occasion to use the technique again. But that doesn’t mean he won’t. 

“These types of arguments can be very effective,” he said. The only possible objection to a “channeling” argument, he learned in his legal research, is that it could inflame the passion and prejudice of the jury. “But in my opinion, that’s what good closing argument for a good trial lawyer is about,” Harman said.

Now, my dear Reader, do you interpret the comments by plaintiff's counsel Harman the way I do? Is he saying -- isn't he saying -- is he actually saying -- that a "good closing argument" is about "[inflaming] the passion and prejudice of the jury"?

Did Harman misspeak? Or was he just being candid?

If Harman was being candid, do you agree with him? If so, do you think part of the federal "prejudice rule" -- Federal Rule of Evidence 403 -- and its state counterparts should be repealed?

Federal Rule of Evidence 403 states in part: "Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice"

The best training for trial advocacy is plainly an appearance or two on Oprah Winfrey's show.

&&&

Spindle Law's Evidence Module has material about the legal rules and principles governing closing arguments in trials.

Lay Judges in Japan Take Part in News Conference

Many observers (including Japanese observers) wondered if cultural attitudes in Japan would make lay judges there passive and ineffective. And some Japanese citizens and jurors persist in saying that Japanese citizens really don't like the idea of being jurors. But is this sentiment -- the notion that ordinary Japanese people are quiet and withdrawn in social settings -- just a piety? I raise this question (again) -- this time because after the second trial with lay judges, all six of the lay judges and both of the two alternate lay judges agreed to take part in a news conference. The Japan Times Online reported:

All six lay judges and two alternates attended a news conference after the trial. Five agreed to be photographed by reporters and two gave their names.

"I've been quite tired. I don't think I want to do it again," said Kenji Kikuchi, smiling during the news conference.

Question: What do you make of Kenji Kikuchi's smile as he (she) spoke? Do you think it's possible he (she) was enjoying himself (herself)?

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Isn't Evidence the Most Important Subject?

Thesis: Evidence is the most important subject.

Discuss.

&&&

See Spindle Law's Evidence Modulefor material about the purpose or purposes of proof in trials.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Inbred Probability

Probabilistic thinking, Alison Gopnik says here, is in the brain's cellular matter -- or, in any event, in the structure and development of the brain's neural connections. I guess I will have to read Gopnik. Her account in the op-ed piece still sounds a bit akin to the tabula rasa theory: Gopnik's account in the op-ed piece suggests that the tablet (the baby's brain) is not entirely empty mainly because probabilistic patterns of organizing data are already embedded in it (the brain or neuro-physiological system). I am inclined to think that babies are born with more than empty but (allegedly) powerful probabilistic methods of interpreting experience and sense data. Perhaps Gopnik agrees, perhaps not; I don't know what she has to say about this issue. So I will have to read her.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Legal Reason and Unreason

Tim van Gelder put an interesting post on his blog about his struggle to restate the reasoning in a judicial opinion. I sent him the following brief (and slightly-edited) private message in which I said, "Your discussion reminds me of the difficulties that many first year law students have with judges' reasoning. The message typically sent by law teachers to their charges is that students have to learn to think logically when in fact, in a real sense (as Tim's post illustrates), people who wish to learn the law have to learn to think illogically."

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Run MarshalPlan (all of it) in Your Web Browser

You can now use your web browser (except Internet Explorer) to run the complete and fully-functional version of the evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan. To run MarshalPlan click on

this link.

But keep the following three things in mind:

1. Do NOT use Internet Explorer, at least for the time being. (IE won't work.)

2. You will have to accept a plug-in.

3. When the browser page MarshalPlan appears, click on the button "Enter Marshalplan." If nothing seems to happen, shrink your browser or look under your browser window (but do not close your browser). You should see the stack "Network Manager." You are in MarshalPlan. Click buttons (links).

If you do not wish to use a browser to run MarshalPlan, you still have the option of downloading MarshalPlan. To do so, go here and follow the instructions.

&&&

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.

In the weeks and months to come, I will post messages that further explain the nature and purposes of MarshalPlan. Stay tuned.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

It Takes a Good Theory to Build a Good (Cognitive) Tool -- or What's Wrong with Most Constitutional Theorizing

I once heard Wards Edwards say that it takes a great theory to build a good tool. Or perhaps this is what David Schum once told me that Ward Edwards once said to him when David had wondered aloud about the value of some his research. There is much wisdom in what Edwards said.

I gnash my teeth or break out in hives when I hear or see a legal scholar say or write that this or that legal field or problem is "undertheorized." This sort of statement suggests that these legal scholars believe that law encrusted with theory is inherently better than law that is not so encumbered. The statement also suggests that these legal theorists believe that coming up with good theories is just a matter of willpower and determination.

Of course, inventing theories is in fact very easy. For example, it is not hard to theorize that the world is an egg laid by a great big turtle. The difficulty, of course, is developing good theories.

There have been various verificationist theories of science, and these theories have gone wrong in various ways. But what they have in common and what remains true in them is the belief that a good theory must be put to the test -- the belief that one must, ultimately, determine whether one's theory stands up to the facts, to the actual workings of the world.

This is one big reason why evidence is or ought to be important in legal scholarship (as well as in science).

The attitude of legal scholars instead is often, "I have an alluring theory. Let me me see if I can make the pertinent legal phenomena fit my theory." This attitude is the path to perdition. It is the legal equivalent of the search for epicycles.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Student Investigation into Public Corruption in New Jersey

It's time to 'fess up: in the spring semester of 2009 a team of students in my course in fact investigation began an investigation of public corruption in New Jersey. The investigation centered on one public official in Jersey City. I mention this because the cat is, so to speak, already out of the bag: on July 23, 2009, the FBI arrested 44 persons in the New York City metropolitan area. Many of those persons were public officials in New Jersey who were effectively charged with taking bribes from a person they mistakenly thought was a real estate developer who was seeking official favors in exchange for money. The person who offered and gave the bribes was in fact a fellow who had gotten into a bit of trouble with the law himself -- in part by successfully(!) passing a bad check for $25 million at a bank drive-through window -- and who decided to cooperate with federal authorities and set up a massive sting, all in an effort to mitigate the punishment that he would eventually be given for his own federal crimes.

I am teaching fact investigation again this fall. My class and I will have to decide whether it is both possible and prudent to try to complete the investigation that the spring semester's fact investigation class began. The difficulties facing any such investigation are formidable: witnesses with something to hide will be especially wary, and federal authorities may not appreciate efforts by law students to investigate matters they may still be investigating. So the hurdles facing a continuation of last semester's investigation are substantial. But perhaps there is a sensible and useful way for my students to go forward with this investigation into public corruption in New Jersey. My students and I will discuss this issue in several weeks, which is when classes at my law school start up again. But I will not report in public the decision that my students and I reach. Sorry!

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

The Importance of Being Open-Minded, Persistent, and Meticulous in an Investigation

Several years ago I wrote and published a paper "The Death of a Youth and of a Drunkard: A Remarkable Story of Habit and Character in New Jersey." The paper appeared in Richard Lempert, ed., Evidence Stories (Foundation Press, 2006). The paper recounted an investigation that some students in my course on fact investigation conducted. The students' investigation demonstrated, in part, the way in which a stereotype ("He was a lousy and dangerous drunkard") can blind both the participants in an investigation and the participants in a trial.

A little while ago I received an interesting e-mail message from Paul Masley, an investigator in West Virginia. With his permission, I have reproduced below a very slightly-edited copy of his message.

&&&

From: Paul D. Masley / [name of company deleted]
Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Subject: The Death of a Youth and a Drunkard
To: peter@tillers.net

Dear Professor Tillers:

I am an insurance claims investigator by profession. While working on a case that I just could not figure out what happened and doing research on the internet, I came across this fantastic paper written by you [about the criminal case State of New Jersey v. Radziwil].

A little background. My client was accused of a hit and run with a pedestrian (death). My client stated that he had hit a deer in another county. The vehicle had been repaired using OEM parts. The only difference was that the repairing shop had used a newer model grille as the original could not longer be purchased.

Even though this case was different [from yours], the similarities were vaguely the same. The more I dug into the cause, the more clueless I became as to the cause. The item that caught my attention in your paper was the evidence for the vehicle. I must have reread your document ten times in my attempt to pick through what I had on my case and each time it pointed back to the evidence submitted on the vehicle. It was wrong.

It took several more weeks of digging and during this time I found that another severe crash had occurred with a similar model vehicle. The only difference was the year models and that the grilles were different. With this in mind, I went back to the family in hopes that they had photos of the vehicle prior to the crash. After digging through hundreds of photos, we found what were looking for.

Upon producing these photos and having several witnesses testify that these photos were of the correct vehicle, producing the repaired photos, and then comparing them to the items that the police used, the case was thrown out. The best document that I was able to obtain for my client was the vehicle production run. The document lists exactly what grille was used in the vehicle, down to the part number. My client's vehicle had not been damaged prior to the incident with the deer. The grille parts that the police had used in their attempt to prosecute my client listed the wrong part number. They had almost 80% of the grille.

I do wish to thank you for listing this document. It made me think. I do have a copy of it in my claims guide and have shared it with other claims examiners when they have been stumped. One other thing I did learn from reading between the lines of your document is to trust no one but your own instincts and to believe in your client.

With best regards,

Paul D. Masley
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
Charleston, West Virginia 25302
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

XXXXX (Personal Company Email)
XXXXX (Main Company Email)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

An Old Story Retold: Inference and Theoretical Variety

Part of what I wrote more than two decades ago bears repeating here and now:

V. THEORETICAL VARIETY

The symposium papers [presented at the Boston University symposium on probability and inference in the law of evidence] offer a variegated theoretical menu; it is not easy to find a common thread. If one views the papers at a high level of abstraction and generality, it may be fair to say that the various papers deal with the same thing--matters such as probability, uncertainty, and inference--but nonetheless make very different claims about this 'thing.' From this perspective, one could argue that the variety found in the symposium papers is something of an embarrassment. In fact, however, the variety in the symposium papers is only an embarrassment of riches. There are many reasons for differentiated theoretical perspectives and explanations. It does not follow from this multiplicity of perspectives either that nothing has been learned or even that fundamental and irreconcilable theoretical conflicts exist. For example, in some instances the differences in the propositions being advanced may be attributable simply to the fact that different processes in the real world are being talked about under rubrics such as 'inference' or 'proof.' This is not to say, to be sure, that close analysis of the papers would show that no true disagreements exist; they do. Nonetheless, the profusion of formal theory, theoretical perspectives, normative theory, and social, political, and ethical theory that surfaces in the symposium papers hints that the way lies open for a synthesizing approach that would use this theoretical diversity to offer a more systematic and comprehensive description of the characteristics-- both logical and empirical--of processes of proof in law. Possibly, each of the papers reveals something true or significant about proof processes. If so, the job is not to grade or rank the various theoretical approaches, but to try to determine what sort of logical and theoretical matrix relates and orders the various contributions made by the various papers to our understanding of inference, proof, and related matters. Regardless of whether all the papers objectively reveal something significant about processes of proof and inference, there is good reason to think that one should entertain this supposition for purposes of further investigation. 'Proof,' in its various guises, is a very complex set of processes and activities. It would be surprising to find that a relatively comprehensive description of its characteristics could be given without resort to a wide variety of theoretical perspectives.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

First Japanese Trial with Lay Judges

The first Japanese trial with lay judges (in the modern era) took place. But that's not the real news. The real news is that one of the lay judges questioned a witness. See Setsuko Kamiya, "Historic first: Lay judge quizzes witness," Japan Times Online (August 5, 2009). Perhaps now we'll hear less about the supposed servility of the ordinary Japanese citizen.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

Some Implications & Presuppositions of MarshalPlan (Multiplicity and Simplicity Are Not Cause for Embarrassment or Regret)

During the last several months I have been posting updates of MarshalPlan. Now it is time to say a few words about the implications of MarshalPlan for epistemology and inferential theory. I have written before in a theoretical vein about MarshalPlan. See Tillers & Schum, "A Theory of Preliminary Fact Investigation" (1991). Now I just want to make some brief observations about two striking features of MarshalPan: (1) the multiplicity of evidence marshaling strategies in MarshalPlan and (ii) the simplicity of many of the evidence marshaling strategies found in MarshalPlan.

If some one were to ask me, "What is the key to factual inference?," I might give a variety of answers. My first response might be to say that there is no key to factual inference. I would say that drawing inferences requires the use of many keys.

If someone were to say to me that one logic (e.g., Bayesian logic) animates or underlies all valid factual inference, I should say, "Even if that is true -- even granting your premise -- it does not follow that only that one logic is needed to do inference. It is as if you said to me, 'A trip to Mars requires the equation F = MA.' In response, I would say, 'Yes, perhaps you're right, but making a trip to Mars requires a great many other things as well. In any event, although some of the things I must do to get to Mars -- e.g., get astronauts to read dials carefully or get machines to record sensory signals to a certain degree of accuracy -- may well be governed by F = MA (or by some other universal equation or equations of your choice), I don't yet understand precisely how reading dials is governed by that equation and, until [and unless] I do, I will have to use something other than F = MA to teach astronauts (or machines) how to read dials carefully and accurately.' So, you see, in addition to a rule such as Bayes' Theorem, I need procedures for storing legal rules, making legal arguments, constructing time lines, keeping track of persons, thinking about possibilities, and so on, and on, and on."

Common sense is, yes, well, aw shucks, quite common. But that does not mean common sense lacks intelligence. If common sense and intuitive sense were not "intelligent," man would long since have perished from the earth. (I grant you that this argument suggests that sharks are quite intelligent. Yes, in certain respects, they are quite intelligent. That is one reason why they have existed -- apparently -- for hundreds of millions of years.)

I think that in many respects the miracle of the human mind is like the miracle of human life: we do not understand very well how we manage to think as well as we do but in fact our seemingly shoddy and shabby and sloppy methods of thinking often work quite well, thank you. So if the "formal evidence marshaling strategies" found in MarshalPlan look and are relatively simple, that does not necessarily count against them: they may be simple devices for evoking simple but intelligent, or effective, ways of thinking. Yes, I grant you, it almost surely must be the case that very complex processes produce, or underlie, these simple forms of conscious thinking and ordering, and it may also be the case that if we could grasp and explicitly describe those complex processes, we could think and infer much better than we do at present. But we cannot wait until heaven arrives. We must make our best guesses now.

I have often puzzled over fuzzy logic. Despite occasional claims to the contrary, I have the sense that fuzzy logic is sometimes a powerful tool for the management (control) of real-world processes. That this should be so may seem a mystery -- because fuzzy logic, to the extent that I understand it, is far more akin to a semantic theory than to a causal theory; that is, although fuzzy logic largely or entirely abjures causal accounts of natural processes, it often seems to control those selfsame natural processes quite nicely, thank you. How is this possible?

My guess is that the power of fuzzy logic in the world of nature is possible because (i) fuzzy logic is indeed at heart a semantic theory and (ii) our words and concepts (including our ordinary words and concepts) somehow harbor, in a way we do not understand, much knowledge about our world.

I think some analogous notion may explain why the "ordinary" and "commonsense" procedures found in MarhalPlan work -- and why they work as well as they do (if, that is, they do work well).

Carefully disassembling -- and reassembling -- our common ways of knowing the world and making guesses about it may lead to important advances in our understanding of our ways of understanding the world. If I can achieve on a legal plane just a small fraction of the things that Lotfi Zadeh has accomplished in fields such as logic and common sense reasoning in general, I would die a happy man (to the extent, at least, that intellectual endeavors and accomplishments account for happiness).

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

You Can Use Your Browser to Run Evidence Marshaling Stacks

You can now use your web browser (except Internet Explorer) to run the complete and fully-functional version of the evidence marshaling software MarshalPlan 3.1. To run MarshalPlan click on

this link..

But keep the following four important things in mind:

1. Do NOT use Internet Explorer, at least for the time being.

2. You will have to accept a plug-in.

3. If you click on a button and nothing happens, shrink your browser or look under your browser window; you should then see the stack that you have called up by clicking a button (a link) in the stack (file) that you see in your browser.

4. To return to the stack (file) "Network Manager," go back to your browser's window (the one that opened when you first clicked on this link).

If you do not wish to use a browser to run MarshalPlan, you still have the option of downloading MarshalPlan. To do so, go here and follow the instructions.

&&&

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

News Flash: MarshalPlan 3.1: Now There Is a Stack for Rules of Evidence

I have created a new stack for MarshalPlan. So I will endow my collection of evidence marshaling stacks with a new number: 3.1.

The new stack is Evidence Rules.

I have also done some tinkering with the Investigation and Proof Time Line Stack. This stack is now divided into two sections: (a) Investigation Time Line and (b) Trial Time Line. Furthermore, the time line cards now have links to legal rules and principles of evidence.

Since I am an Evidence person, this gives me a feeling of closure, catharsis, or, more simply put, achievement and satisfaction. [But much work lies ahead of me, alas.])

The stacks (files) found below are the evidence marshaling stacks that now 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 3.1 in its full glory.

After you download all of the stacks and open Revolution Player, I strongly suggest you start by running the stack Network Manager; this stack gives you a map of all of the other stacks.

Network Manager

As I noted above, I suggest you begin by using Revolution Player to run this stack.

Analysts (Users)
Legal Actors
Event Actors
Witnesses
Directory of (All) Persons
Case Theory
Evidence of Material Facts
Evidence for and against Material Facts
Legal Argument
Substantive Legal Rules
Rules of Evidence
Legal Source Material
Loose Thoughts
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

Witness Credibility Attribute: Ability to Communicate
Witness Credibility Attribute: Veracity
Witness Credibility Attribute: Personal Knowledge
Witness Credibility Attribute: Memory
Witness Credibility Attribute: Objectivity
Witness Credibility Attribute: Sensory Capacity (Quality of Sense Organs)

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

Planning for Trial Planning

The following, diagram or something like it should become the basis for the development of one part of the proof time line stack in MarshalPlan:

The rules of evidence could be linked to the questions and answers in the above chart (which might be put on cards in the proof time line stack of MarshalPlan. (But before that is done, I also need to develop a separate stack for rules of evidence. This should not be hard to do: I can use part of the legal rules stack as a template.)

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

On the Waterfront, Charitable Deeds May Be Their Own Reward

Minutes of Jersey City Redevelopment Agency, July 15, 2008:

Upon questioning by the Chairman regarding their involvement in City charities, Ms. Chesler indicated that K. Hovnanian has always been a partner in helping the City’s charitable organizations, however, they do not boast about it indicating that PAL and Hudson Cradle are just two of those institutions.

K. Hovnanian is a real estate developer. Hovnanian is apparently involved in projects that need the approval of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency.

James K. Morley is one of the commissioners of the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency.

James K. Morley is the chairman of the board of trustees of The Jerramiah T. Healy Charitable Foundation for A Better Jersey City. See here.

James K. Morely is also the chairman of Jersey City Redevlopment Authority. See this.

Morley is therefore apparently the person who asked the question at the top.

&&&

It is gratifying to see how public-spirited Jersey City officials are and to see the lengths to which they go (even on the record) to make sure that real estate developers in Jersey City are also public-spirited.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

On the Waterfront: A Golf Course and Local Charities

Patrick Villanova, "PGA elite coming to Jersey City golf course," Jersey Journal (July 21, 2009):

"It has meaning because the golfers are going to be competing for (the FedEx Cup)," said Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy, who was in attendance at a press conference at Liberty National yesterday. "The greatest golfers on Earth are coming to what I consider to be the greatest golfing venue on Earth, which is this golf course."

[snip, snip]

Like the course it will be played on, the event itself is unique, for its strong connection with charities in the area. As a part of the PGA Tour's "Tickets Fore Charity," the American Red Cross of Northern New Jersey is selling tickets to The Barclays, for which it will receive 75 percent of the proceeds from those sales.

"Hundreds of charities will be touched by this event and we're very very proud of that," said Pillsbury. "Over a million dollars will be left in this community to local charities." "It certainly has great rewards for our city. Not only the economic impact with the hotel, the restaurants, small businesses, but millions of dollars will be left behind for Jersey City's churches, charitable institutions and public service non-profits," Healy said. "We're looking forward with tremendous hope and optimism to Aug. 25 through 30."

Byline: "Dan Fireman/For The Paul & Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation"; Title of Article: "Jersey City organizations honored by The Paul & Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation," Star-Ledger (Nov. 12, 2008):

An event this week at Liberty National Golf Club in Jersey City with Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy celebrated The Paul & Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation's announcement of $500,000 in grants to support local not-for-profit organizations.

[snip, snip]

"Our Foundation's core values support helping people help themselves and the grants are just one way we give back to a community that has welcomed us and the development of Liberty National," said Paul Fireman. "I am very pleased to be providing these outstanding organizations with financial means to help them improve the quality of life of Jersey City's residents."

The organizations and programs receiving support are:

[snip, snip]

-- Jerramiah T. Healy Charitable Foundation - An independent, non-profit organization committed to providing aid and assistance for the betterment of Jersey City families, individuals, or organizations of limited financial means.

The Paul and Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation is based in Boston and owned and operated by the family. The foundation was created by former Reebok International CEO and co-founder of Liberty National in Jersey City, Paul Fireman, and his wife Phyllis.

Michaelangelo Conte, "Exclusive Jersey City golf club gives big to local Hudson County groups," Jersey Journal (Nov. 12, 2008):

Membership at Jersey City's exclusive Liberty National Golf Club is said to be sky high, but so is the half a million dollars the club's owners doled out to worthwhile Hudson County organizations today.

"In many ways we feel as much part of this community as our home community in Massachusetts and as a result of that, we are setting a standard," said Dan Fireman, whose parents established the Paul & Phyllis Fireman Charitable Foundation.

[snip, snip]

Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah T. Healy also attended yesterday's event and his foundation, the Jerramiah T. Healy Charitable Foundation, walked away with grants of $25,000 to $100,000.

"We have a lot of opportunity here, a lot of talent, but we need a lot of help to make sure that talent is nurtured and moves forward," Healy said.

The $129 million golf club opened in 2006 and its members include former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani, as well as New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft.

Hoboken's Applied Development is also building 1,000 residential units as part of the development.

Ken Thorbourne, Journal Staff Writer, "Healy sets up foundation to help needy," Jersey City List (Nov. 2, 2006):

He's mayor of Jersey City, but believes government has its limitations. He also believes charity begins at home.

With these principles in mind, Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy has launched "The Jerramiah T. Healy Charitable Foundation for a Better Jersey City," a tax-exempt non-profit, whose mission is to help needy individuals and causes within the city limits.

Incorporated over a year ago, the foundation received its official tax-exempt status in September. Its biggest fund-raiser to date took place Monday: a golf tournament at the posh Liberty National Golf Course organized by Paul and Dan Fireman, the golf club owners, and Connell Foley, the go-to law firm for developers in Jersey City.

The admission price for single golfers was $2,000 per person, and foursomes could play for $7,500, according to the organizers.

"It's simply to help people in need and causes in need inside Jersey City," Healy said last week of the nonprofit. "There are also a bunch of donors out there who would like to contribute to help good causes in the city. It has nothing to do with any political purposes." The concept isn't new to Jersey City mayors. Bret Schundler established one, as did the late Glenn D. Cunningham.

According to documents provided by James Carroll, a Jersey City police sergeant who doubles as the Healy foundation's attorney, the charity collected $31,080 and doled out $8,398.21. This year, the nonprofit took in $200,000, gave out $127,500, and spent $65,000 on fundraising expenses, and $7,500 on professional fees - leaving $22,682 cash on hand, according to the documents. A list of donors and recipients wasn't provided.

The tax-exempt benefit of donating to Healy's nonprofit is retroactive to July 2005, when it was incorporated, an IRS spokesman said. The foundation's board has 13 members, including Maureen Healy, Healy's wife; Maria Pignataro, the mayor's press secretary; and Joseph Kealy, the attorney for the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency.

James Morley, chair of the redevelopment agency and a member of the Jersey City Library Board, is the foundation's president.

Michael Ryan, the owner of the PJ Ryan's bar and restaurant on Marin Boulevard, also sits on the board, and his establishment, according to the incorporation papers, is the foundation's official meeting place.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law

On the Waterfront: Real Estate and Corruption

The waterfront of Jersey City -- the area along the Hudson River -- has been the venue during the last decade for real estate developments worth many billions of dollars. This area now hosts, for example, the most expensive golf course in America and the largest mixed-use (residential and commercial) development in America.

Corrupt government officials in New Jersey may have been content to accept small bribes, but their decisions about real estate development in New Jersey affected investment and development decisions worth billions.

New Jersey Corruption Saga and Investigation Continue

You will recall that a few days ago the FBI arrested 44 persons -- most of them New Jersey government officials -- for taking bribes, mostly in exchange for promises of help with real estate developments. The bribe-giver, however, was a "cooperating witness" -- a man called Dwek -- who had himself gotten in legal trouble a few years earlier (by passing a bad $25 million check at a bank drive-through window) and was apparently doing his best, for a very long period of time, to reduce his eventual punishment for his own defalcations. These arrests have put into motion a series of interesting events. See the following headlines (which tell much of the story) and the following linked stories in publications of nj.com:

Augustin Torres, "Solomon Dwek [the copperating witness] must have met every politically connected person in Hudson County," Jersey Journal (July 28, 2009)

A snippet:

Solomon Dwek must have met everyone on the Hudson County political landscape the past two years while on his FBI-motivated mission to entice and corrupt anyone with insider influence. His work resulted in the arrest of 44 individuals Thursday, many of them public officials.

What is interesting is the number of people who are eager to contact members of the media to reveal that they had encounters with the federal government's cooperating witness or Mr. 'CW,' who has been identified as Solomon Dwek.

"200 call for Cammarano [mayor of Hoboken] to quit office" Jersey Journal (July 28, 2009)

A snippet:

In Hoboken, neither rain nor a little hail could deter roughly 200 people who came to City Hall last night to protest Mayor Peter's Cammarano's decision to remain in office even though he has a corruption charge hanging over his head.

Amy Clark, "Jersey City City Council President Mariano Vega to quit abatement panel, but won't resign" Jersey Journal (July 28, 2009)

A snippet:

Jersey City Council President Mariano Vega Jr. said yesterday he was as surprised as anybody else to find himself participating in a perp walk last week and he has no intention of resigning his posts.

"The events from this past Thursday are as shocking to me as everyone else," Vega read from a statement at the council's caucus meeting.

"Secaucus Mayor Dennis Elwell will resign, but contest federal corruption charge," Star-Ledger (July 28, 2009)

A snippet:

Mayor Dennis Elwell [mayor of Seacaucus, NJ] is the first elected official arrested in last week's corruption sweep in New Jersey to say he'll resign.

Elwell's lawyer said his client is stepping down, but is not admitting guilt and will defend himself against the allegations.

"Jersey City pol basks in limelight of political corruption arrest: video," Jersey Journal (July 28, 2009)

A snippet:

A Jersey City political operative [Joseph Cardwell] exhibited Jersey perp walk technique No. 4 when leaving the federal courthouse on Thursday after being charged in the massive corruption scandal, according to a "Ledger Live" video that also shows former Jersey City council candidate LaVern Webb-Washington covering her head with clothes and replays Mayor Jerramiah Healy singing the "Bradley Beach Prison Blues.''

Joseph Cardwell, accused of agreeing to offer a bribe to a public official, can be heard saying, "Like a rock star, right" as news photographers jump in his path, snapping away like paparazzi.

N.B. The video is well worth watching. It includes a snippet showing Mayor Jerramiah Healy singing a New Jersey variant of the "Folsom Prison Blues." [Did ASCAP get its money?]

Augustin Torres, "Jack Shaw, figure in massive NJ corruption scandal, found dead in Jersey City," Jersey Journal (July 28, 2009)

A snippet:

Jack Shaw of Jersey City, one of the 44 people arrested in Thursday's massive New Jersey corruption scandal, was found dead in his apartment this evening, Hudson County Prosecutor Edward DeFazio has confirmed.

A relative found the 61-year-old political consultant's body, De Fazio said.

"6 Jersey City employees in sweep are off municipal payroll," Jersey Journal (July 29, 2009)

A snippet:

Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini; John Guarini, a clerk in the Building Department; Maher Khalil, deputy director of the city's Department of Health and Human Services; Joseph Castagna, the city's health officer; Guy Catrillo, a former City Council candidate and planning aide; and Michael Manzo, a firefighter are the six Jersey City employees arrested in last week's corruption sweep, officials confirmed. yesterday.

Paul Takahashi, "100 outside City Hall demand resignations from Healy, Lopez and Vega," Jersey Journal (July 29, 2009)

A snippet:

About 100 people are demonstrating outside City Hall in Jersey City, demanding that Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy, City Council President Mariano Vega and Councilwoman Nidia Lopez resign.

[snip, snip]

Vega was charged in a massive FBI sting last week. He is charged with three $10,000 payments for his re-election campaign. Healy has not been charged, but has said he's Jersey City Official 4 in the criminal complaint against Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini, Hudson County Affirmative Action Officer Ed Cheatam and political consultant Jack Shaw.

The complaint alleges that Cheatam, Shaw and Beldini accepted bribes as campaign contributions to Healy's campaign; and that Healy met twice with the FBI informant who offered the bribes.

Shaw was found dead Tuesday night in his home.

Lopez was not charged in the sting, but an opponent in the May election, Jimmy King, who was charged in the sting, has filed a lawsuit questioning her residency in Jersey City.

Paul Takahashi, "Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy says he won't resign," Jersey Journal (July 29, 2009)

A snippet:

"I was accused of no wrongdoing," said the mayor, who was alluded to as "JC Official 4" in the federal criminal complaint against Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini, Hudson County Affirmative Action Officer Ed Cheatam and political strategist Jack Shaw, who was found dead in his apartment yesterday. "I intend on doing the job that people elected me to do."

More prosecutorial shoes will probably fall. The big question now is whether one of them will fall on Mayor Healy.

Josh Margolin & Mark Mueller, "Feds issue subpoenas in Hoboken, Jersey City, Ridgefield, Secaucus," Star-Ledger (July 29, 2009)

A snippet:

Federal investigators have served subpoenas on government offices in four New Jersey communities where elected officials were swept up last week in a sprawling FBI corruption probe.

Are state and local prosecutors doing anything? It is possible that New Jersey's attorney general, probably with prodding from New Jersey's Governor Corzine (whose re-election prospects have been damaged by the scandal), will do something. But local prosecutors in Hudson County (which encompasses Jersey City [the actual venue for Marlon Brando {"I cudda been somebody"} in "On the Waterfront" {which was a story about the Brooklyn docks}] and Hoboken [Frank Sinatra's birthplace], who cannot be accused of having an excessive amount of courage or imagination, will very probably bring no charges; they don't seem to be much interested in high-level political corruption in New Jersey. And that's an old story.

&&&

The dynamic evidence page

Coming soon: the law of evidence on Spindle Law