Sentencing Illicit Drug Traffickers: How do the Courts Handle Random Sampling Issues?

International Statistical Review

Volumn 71, Issue 3, 2003, Pages 535-556

  Izenman, Alan J ^a  

^a TEMPLE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Controlled substances; Drug laws; Federal sentencing guidelines; Forensic statistics; Homogeneity; Multistage sampling; Random sampling; Standards of proof

Indexed keywords

EID: 0344063643     PISSN: 03067734     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1751-5823.2003.tb00210.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Aitken, C.G.G. (1999). Sampling - how big a sample? Journal of Forensic Sciences, 44, 750-760.
2. Aitken, C.G.G. (2000). Sample size determination and evidence interpretation. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Ed. J. Gastwirth,pp. 1-24. New York: Springer-Verlag.
3. Beaupre, B. & Eisler, P. (1996). Crisis in evidence. USA Today, August 20 1A, 2A, 7A; August 21 9A.
4. Boswell, M.T., Gore, S.D., Lovison, G. & Patil, G.P. (1996). Annotated bibliography of composite sampling, part A: 1936-92. Environmental and Ecological Statistics, 3, 1-50.
5. British Standard BS 5309 (1993). Methods for the sampling of chemical products: Part I. Introduction and general principles.
6. Bureau of Justice Assistance (1996). National Assessment of Structured Sentencing, NJ-153853. U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C.
7. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques, Third Edition. New York: Wiley.
8. Colon, M., Rodriguez, G. & Diaz, R.O. (1993). Representative sampling of street' drug exhibits. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 641-648.
9. Deming, W.E. (1954). On the presentation of the results of sample surveys as legal evidence. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 49, 814-825.
10. Department of Justice (2002). DEA briefs and background: law enforcement statistics, Washington, D.C. See http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/statistics.html.
11. Desu, M.M. & Raghavarao, D. (1990). Sample Size Methodology. New York: Academic Press.
12. Diamond, S.S. (1994). Reference guide on survey research. In Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Federal Judicial Center, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, pp. 221-271.
13. Federal Judicial Center (2000). Reference Materials for Charging and Sentencing After Apprendi, a Federal Judicial Center broadcast on the Federal Judicial Television Network, first broadcast December 13, 2000.
14. Frank, R.S., Hinkley, S.W. & Hoffman, C.G. (1991). Representative sampling of drug seizures in multiple containers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 36, 350-357.
15. Gastwirth, J.L. (1988). Statistical Reasoning in Law and Public Policy: (Vol. 1) Statistical Concepts and Issues of Fairness; (Vol. 2) Tort Law, Evidence, and Health. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
16. Gastwirth, J.L., Friedlin, B. & Miao, W. (2000). The Shonubi case as an example of the legal system's failure to appreciate statistical evidence. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Ed. J.L. Gastwirth, pp. 25-53. New York: Springer-Verlag.
17. Greenhouse, L. (2001). Court to weigh criminal sentencing. New York Times, December 11, 2001.
18. Greenhouse, L. (2002). Justices weigh how far to take a sentencing revolution. New York Times, March 26, 2002.
19. 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.
20. Hedayat, S., Izenman, A.J. & Zhang, W.G. (1996). Random sampling for the forensic study of controlled substances (with discussion). ASA Proceedings of the Section on Physical and Engineering Sciences, pp. 12-23.
21. 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, Ed. J.L. Gastwirth, pp. 25-53. New York: Springer-Verlag.
22. Izenman, A.J. (2000b). Introduction to two views of the Shonubi case. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Ed. J.L. Gastwirth, pp. 397-407. New York: Springer-Verlag.
23. Izenman, A.J. (2000c). Assessing the statistical evidence in the Shonubi case. In Statistical Science in the Courtroom, Ed. J.L. Gastwirth, pp. 419-444. New York: Springer-Verlag.
24. Izenman, A.J. (2001). Legal and statistical aspects of the forensic study of illicit drugs. Statistical Science, 16, 35-57.
25. King, N.J. & Klein, S.R. (2000). Après Apprendi. In Reference Materials for Charging and Sentencing After Apprendi. Washington, D.C.: Federal Judicial Center, pp. 14-41.
26. Kruskal, W. & Mosteller, F. (1979). Representative sampling. I. Nonscientific literature. II. Scientific literature, excluding statistics. III. The current statistical literature. International Statistical Review, 47, 13-24, 111-127, 245-265.
27. Lancaster, V.A. & Keller-McNulty, S. (1998). A review of composite sampling methods. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 93, 1216-1230.
28. 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 94-95 ALR2d (1993) pp. 366-368.]
29. 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 94-95 ALR2d (1993) pp. 366-368.]
30. Le, S.D., Taylor, R.W., Vidal, D., Lovas, J.J. & Ting, E. (1992). Occupational exposure to cocaine involving crime lab personnel. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37, 959-968.
31. Särndal, C.-E., Swensson, B. & Wretman, J. (1992). Model Assisted Survey Sampling. New York: Springer-Verlag.
32. Strong, J.W. (1992). McCormick on Evidence, Volume 1, 4th edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
33. Tzidony, D. & Ravreby, M. (1992). A statistical approach to drug sampling: a case study. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 37, 1541-1549.
34. United Nations (1987). Recommended Methods for Testing Cannabis: Manual for Use by National Narcotics Laboratories. United Nations, Division of Narcotic Drugs, Vienna.
35. United States Sentencing Commission (1995). Federal Sentencing Guidelines Manual. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
36. Walker, L. & Monahan, J. (1998). Sampling damages. Iowa Law Review, 83, 545-568.
37. Walker, L. & Monahan, J. (1999). Sampling liability. Virginia Law Review, 85, 329-351.
38. Wigmore, J.H. (1979). Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Volume 2. Boston: Little, Brown.