Statistical and Legal Aspects of the Forensic Study of Illicit Drugs

Statistical Science

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 35-57

  Izenman, Alan Julian ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Composite sampling; Controlled substances; Federal sentencing guidelines; Forensic statistics; Homogeneity; Multistage sampling; Random sampling; Sample size; Standards of proof; Statistics and the law

Indexed keywords

EID: 0010475344     PISSN: 08834237     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1214/ss/998929475     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. AITKEN, C. G. G. (1995). Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists. Wiley, New York.
2. AITKEN, C. G. G. (1999). Sampling - how big a sample? J. Forensic Sciences 44 750-760.
3. AITKEN, C. G. G. (2000). Sample size determination and evidence interpretation. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom (J. Gastwirth, ed.) Springer, New York.
4. AITKEN, C. G. G., BRING, J., LEONARD, T. and PAPASOULIOTIS, O. (1997). Estimation of quantities of drugs handled and the burden of proof. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A 160 333-350.
5. BEAUPRE, B. and EISLER, P. (1996). Crisis in evidence. USA Today August 20, 1A, 2A, 7A; August 21 9A.
6. BELLHOUSE, D. (1988). A brief history of survey sampling. In Handbook of Statistics (P. R. Krishnaiah and C.R. Rao, eds.) 6 1-15. North-Holland, Amsterdam.
7. BLANCK, F. C. (1927). Report of the Committee on Sampling. J. Assoc. Official Agricultural Chemists 10 92-98.
8. BOLAND, B. and HEALY, K. M. (1993). Prosecutorial Response to Heavy Drug Caseloads: Comprehensive Problem-Reduction Strategies. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
9. BOSWELL, M. T., GORE, S. D., LOVISON, G. and PATIL, G.P. (1996). Annotated bibliography of composite sampling. Part A. 1936-92. Environmental and Ecological Statistics 3 1-50.
10. BOSWELL, M. T. and PATIL, G. P. (1987). A perspective of composite sampling. Comm. Statist. Theory Methods 16 3069-3093.
11. BRING, J. and AITKEN, C. G. G. (1997). Burden of proof and estimation of drug quantities under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Cardozo Law Review 18 1987-1999.
12. BRITISH STANDARD BS 5309 (1993). Methods for the sampling of chemical products. Part I. Introduction and general principles.
13. BROOKMEYER, R. and GAIL, M. H. (1994). AIDS Epidemiology: A Quantitative Approach. Oxford Univ. Press.
14. BROWN, G. H. and FISHER, N. I. (1972). Subsampling a mixture of sampled material. Technometrics 14 663-668.
15. BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE (1996). National Assessment of Structured Sentencing, NCJ-153853. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
16. COCHRAN, W. G. (1977). Sampling Techniques, 3rd ed. Wiley, New York.
17. COLON, M., RODRIGUEZ, G. and DIAZ. R. O. (1993). Representative sampling of "street" drug exhibits. J. Forensic Sciences 38 641-648.
18. COMMITTEE ON SAMPLING (1925). Report of the Committee on Sampling. J. Assoc. Official Agricultural Chemists 8 287-290.
19. DEGROOT, M. H., FIENBERG, S. E. and KADANE, J. B., eds. (1986). Statistics and the Law. Wiley, New York. [Also reprinted (1994) as a Wiley Classics Library Edition.]
20. DEMING, W. E. (1954). On the presentation of the results of sample surveys as legal evidence. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 49 814-825.
21. DESU, M. M. and RAGHAVARAO, D. (1990). Sample Size Methodology. Academic Press, New York.
22. DEVITT, E. J., BLACKMAR, C. B. and WOLFF, M. A. (1987). Federal Jury Practice and Instructions, Civil, 3, 4th ed. West, St. Paul, MN.
23. DIAMOND, S. (1994). Reference guide on survey research. In Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 221-271. Federal Judicial Center. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
24. DUNCAN, A. J. (1962). Bulk sampling: problems and lines of attack. Technometrics 4 319-344.
25. ELDER, R. S., THOMPSON, W. O. and MYERS, R. H. (1980). Properties of composite sampling procedures. Technometrics 22 179-186.
26. FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER (1994). Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
27. FEDERER, W. T. (1984). Cutting edges in biometry. Biometrics 40 827-839.
28. FIENBERG, S. E., ed. (1989). The Evolving Role of Statistical Assessments as Evidence in the Courts. Springer, New York.
29. FINKELSTEIN, M. O. and LEVIN, R. (1990). Statistics for Lawyers. Springer, New York.
30. FOSTER, E. M. (1971). The control of Salmonellae in processed foods: classification system and sampling plan. J. Assoc. Official Analytical Chemists 54 259-266.
31. FRANK, R. S., HINKLEY, S. W. and HOFFMAN, C. G. (1991). Representative sampling of drug seizures in multiple containers. J. Forensic Sciences 36 350-357.
32. GASTWIRTH, J. L. (1987). The statistical precision of medical screening procedures: application to polygraph and AIDS antibodies test data. Statist. Sci. 2 213-238.
33. GASTWIRTH, J. L. (1988). Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy: (1) Statistical Concepts and Issues of Fairness; (2) Tort Law, Evidence, and Health. Academic Press, New York.
34. GASTWIRTH, J. L. (1992). Statistical reasoning in the legal setting. Amer. Statist. 46 55-69.
35. GASTWIRTH, J. L., ed. (2000). Statistical Science in the Courtroom. Springer, New York.
36. GASTWIRTH, J. L. and HAMMICK, P. A. (1989). Estimation of prevalence of a rare disease, preserving anonymity of subjects by group testing: application to estimating the prevalence of AIDS antibodies in blood donors. J. Statist. Plann. Inference 22 15-27.
37. GAYLOR, D. W. and HARTWELL, T. D. (1969). Expected mean squares for nested classifications. Biometrics 25 427-430.
38. GONYER, T. E. (1998). Federal Sentencing in a post-Chapman world: what is a "mixture or substance." Kansas Law Review 46 983-1011.
39. GREENWALD, L. (1994). Relevant conduct and the impact of the preponderance standard of proof under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: a denial of due process. Vermont Law Review 18 529-563.
40. HAMMICK, P. A. and GASTWIRTH, J. L. (1994). Group testing for sensitive characteristics: extension to higher prevalence levels. Internat. Statist. Rev. 62 319-331.
41. HANSEN, M. H. (1987). Some history and reminiscences on survey sampling. Statist. Sci. 2 180-190.
42. HEDAYAT, A. S., IZENMAN, A. J. and ZHANG, W. G. (1996). Random sampling for the forensic study of controlled substances (with discussion). In Proceedings of the Physical and Engineering Sciences Section 12-23. Amer. Statist. Assoc., Alexandria, VA.
43. HUGHES-OLIVER, J. M.and SWALLOW, W. H. (1994). A two-stage adaptive group-testing procedure for estimating small proportions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 89 982-993.
44. HUYNH, H. and FELDT, L. S. (1970). Conditions under which mean square ratios in repeated measurements designs have exact F-distributions. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 65 1582-1589.
45. IZENMAN, A. J. (2000a). Statistical issues in the application of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in drug, pornography, and fraud cases. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom (J. Gastwirth, ed.) 25-50. Springer, New York.
46. IZENMAN, A.J. (2000b). Introduction to two views on the Shonubi case. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom (J. Gastwirth, ed.) 393-403. Springer, New York.
47. IZENMAN, A. J. (2000c). Assessing the statistical evidence in the Shonubi case. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom (J. Gastwirth, ed.) 415-443. Springer, New York.
48. IZENMAN, A. J., PAPASOULIOTIS, O., LEONAHD, T. and AITKEN, C. G. G. (1998). Bayesian predictive evaluation of measurement error with application to the assessment of illicit drug quantity. Unpublished manuscript.
49. KAYE, D. H. and AICKIN, M., eds. (1986). Statistical Methods in Discrimination Litigation. Dekker, New York.
50. KRUSKAL, W. and MOSTELLER, F. (1979). Representative sampling. I. Nonscientific literature. II. Scientific literature, excluding statistics. III. The current statistical literature. Internat. Statist. Rev. 47 13-24, 111-127, 245-265.
51. LANCASTER, V. A. and KELLER-MCNULTY, S. (1998). A review of composite sampling methods. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 93 1216-1230.
52. LARSEN, K. H. (1964). Admissibility in evidence of sample or samples of article or substance of which the quality, condition, or the like is involved in litigation. ALR2d 95 681-712. [See also Later Case Service Supplementing 93-95 ALR2d (1993) 366-368.]
53. LARSEN, K. H. (1964). Admissibility in evidence of sample or samples of article or substance of which the quality, condition, or the like is involved in litigation. ALR2d 95 681-712. [See also Later Case Service Supplementing 93-95 ALR2d (1993) 366-368.]
54. LE, S. D., TAYLOR, R. W., VIDAL, D., LOVAS, J. J. and TING, E. (1992). Occupational exposure to cocaine involving crime lab personnel. J. Forensic Sciences 37 959-968.
55. LEHMANN, E. L. (1986). Testing Statistical Hypotheses, 2nd ed. Wiley, New York.
56. LIMAN, L. J. (2000). Initial thoughts on Apprendi v. New Jersey. New York Law Journal July 5 3.
57. MAURO, T. and RINGEL, J. (2000). In striking N.J. hate crimes law, Court may trigger sentencing review. New Jersey Law Journal July 3 1.
58. MUNCH, J. C. and BIDWELL, G. L. (1928). What constitutes an adequate sample? J. Assoc. Official Agricultural Chemists 11 220-222.
59. PAUL, A. E. (1927). Sampling drugs. J. Assoc. Official Agricultural Chemists 10 99-102.
60. PENNSYLVANIA BAR INSTITUTE (1981). Pennsylvania Suggested Standard Civil Jury Instructions.
61. QUACKENBUSH, F. W. and RUND, R. C. (1967). The continuing problem of sampling. J. Assoc. Official Analytical Chemists 50 997-1006.
62. ROHDE, C. A. (1976). Composite sampling. Biometrics 32 273-282.
63. RUNKEL, H. (1926). Report on methods for sampling flour. J. Assoc. Official Agricultural Chemists 9 423-426.
64. SÄRNDAL, C.-E., SWENSSON, B. and WRETMAN, J. (1992). Model Assisted Survey Sampling. Springer, New York.
65. SCHUSTER, J. J. (1991). The statistician in a reverse cocaine sting. Amer. Statist. 45 123-124.
66. SEARLE, S. R. and FAWCETT, R. F. (1970). Expected mean squares in variance components models having finite populations. Biometrics 26 243-254.
67. STEPHAN, F. F. (1948). History of the uses of modern sampling procedures. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 43 12-39.
68. STRONG, J. W., ed. (1992). McCormick on Evidence 1, 4 ed. West, St. Paul, MN.
69. TZIDONY, D. and RAVREBY, M. (1992). A statistical approach to drug sampling: a case study. J. Forensic Sciences 37 1541-1549.
70. UNITED NATIONS (1987). Recommended Methods for Testing Cannabis: Manual for Use by National Narcotics Laboratories. United Nations, Division of Narcotic Drugs, Vienna.
71. UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION (1991). Special Report to the Congress: Mandatory Minimum Penalties in the Federal Criminal Justice System. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
72. UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION (1995). Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. West, St. Paul, MN.
73. WALKER, L. and MONAHAN, J. (1998). Sampling damages. Iowa Law Review 83 545-568.
74. WALKER, L. and MONAHAN, J. (1999). Sampling liability. Virginia Law Review 85 329-351.
75. WALKER, V. R. (1994). Direct inference in the last chance cases: factfinding constraints under minimal fairness to parties. Hofstra Law Review 23 247-307.
76. WETHERILL, G. B. and BROWN, D. W. (1991). Statistical Process Control: Theory and Practice. Chapman and Hall, New York.
77. WIGMORE, J. H. (1979). Evidence in Trials at Common Law 2. Little, Brown, Boston.
78. YOUNG, D. (1990). Rethinking the Commission's drug guidelines: courier cases where quantity overstates culpability. Federal Sentencing Reporter 3 63-66.
79. ZEISEL, H. and KAYE, D. (1997). Prove It with Figures: Empirical Methods in Law and Litigation. Springer, New York.