Toward an Empirical Approach to Evidentiary Ruling

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 27, Issue 6, 2003, Pages 661-684

  Davis, Deborah ^a   Follette, William C ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

Empirical; Evidence; Motive; Probative value; Profiling; Utility

Indexed keywords

BAYES THEOREM; COURT; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EVIDENTIARY RULING; GUILT; MOTIVATION; PROBABILITY; REVIEW; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE;

BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); CRIME; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; PROBABILITY; SPOUSES; STEREOTYPING; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0348155639     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:LAHU.0000004893.92114.d9     Document Type: Review

References (63)

1. Armour, J. D. (1994). Race ipsa loquitur: Of reasonable racists, intelligent Bayesians, and involuntary Negrophobes. Stanford Law Review, 46, 781-790.
2. Ball, V. C. (1980). The myth of conditional relevancy. Georgia Law Review, 14, 435.
3. Bixenstine, V. E. (1999). Spousal homicide. In H. V. Hall (Ed.), Lethal violence: A sourcebook of fatal domestic, acquaintance and stranger violence (pp. 231-257). New York: CRC Press.
4. Callen, C. R. (1996). Proving the case: Character and prior acts. Colorado Law Review, 67, 777-787.
5. Copeland, J., & Snyder, M. (1995). When counselors confirm: A functional analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1210-1221.
6. Crump, D. (1997). On the uses of irrelevant evidence. Houston Law Review, 34, 1-53.
7. Davis, D. (2002, October). Toward empirical standards for evaluation of the admissibility of evidence. Paper presented at the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, Columbus, OH.
8. Davis, D., & Follette, W. C. (2002). Rethinking probative value of evidence: Base rates, intuitive profiling and the postdiction of behavior. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 133-158.
9. Faigman, D. L., & Baglioni, A. J. (1988). Bayes' theorem in the trial process: Instructing jurors on the value of statistical evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 1-17.
10. Friedman, R. D. (1986). A close look at probative value. Boston University Law Review, 66, 733-759.
11. Friedman, R. D. (1991). Character impeachment evidence: Psycho-Bayesian[!?] analysis and a proposed overhaul. UCLA Law Review, 38, 655-662.
12. Friedman, R. D. (1994). Conditional probative value: Neoclassicism without myth. Michigan Law Review, 93, 439-477.
13. Friedman, R. D. (1995). Refining conditional probative value. Michigan Law Review, 94, 457-465.
14. Friedman, R. D. (1997). Irrelevance, minimal relevance, and meta-relevance. Houston Law Review, 34, 55-71.
15. Friedman. R. D. (2000). A presumption of innocence, not of even odds. Stanford Law, Review, 52, 873-887.
16. Friedman. R. D., & Park, R. C. (2003). Sometimes what everybody thinks they know is true. Law and Human Behavior, 27 (6), 629-644.
17. Garbolino. P. (2001). Explaining relevance. Cardozo Law Review, 22, 1503-1521.
18. Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. London: Oxford University Press.
19. Grady, D. (2003. June 25). Study finds new risks in hormone therapy. New York times.
20. Jonas, E., Schulz-Hardt, S., Frey, D., & Thelen, N. (2001). Confirmation bias in sequential information search after preliminary decisions: An expansion of dissonance theoretical research on selective exposure to information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 557-571.
21. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.
22. Kaye, D. H. (1986). Quantifying probative value. Boston University Law Review, 66, 761-766.
23. Kaye, D. H. (1987). The polygraph and the PVP. Statistical Science, 2, 223-226.
24. Kaye, D. H. (1993). DNA evidence: Probability, population genetics, and the courts. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. 7, 101-172.
25. Kaye, D. H. (1995). The relevance of "matching" DNA: Is the window half open or half shut? Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85, 676-695.
26. Kaye, D. H., & Koehler, J. J. (2003). The misquantification of probative value. Law and Human Behavior. 27(6), 645-659.
27. Keller, D. (2001). An almost perfect murder: The saga of Michael Franklin. McLean, VA: IndyPublish.com (2001).
28. Koehler, J. J. (1996). Proving the case: The science of DNA. On conveying the probative value of DNA evidence: Frequencies, likelihood ratios, and error rates. Colorado Law Review, 67, 859-886.
29. Koehler, J. J. (2001). The psychology of numbers in the courtroom: How to make DNA-MAtch statistics seem impressive or insufficient. Southern California Law Review, 74, 1275-1305.
30. Koehler, J. J., Chia, A., & Lindsey, J. S. (1995). The random match probability in DNA evidence: Irrelevant and prejudicial? Jurimetrics Journal, 35, 201.
31. Koski, D. D. (2001). Jury decision making in rape trials: A review and empirical assessment. Criminal Law Bulletin, 38, 21-159.
32. Lempert, R. (1977). Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review, 75, 1021.
33. Lempert, R. (2001). The economic analysis of evidence law: Common sense on stilts. Virginia Law Review, 87, 1619-1712.
34. Litwack, T. R., & Schlesinger, L. B. (1999). Dangerousness risk assessments: Research, legal, and clinical considerations. In A. K. Hess & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), The handbook of forensic psychology (pp. 171-217). New York: Wiley.
35. Lyon, T. D., & Koehler, J. J. (1996). The relevance ratio: Evaluating the probative value of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases. Cornell Law Review, 82, 43-78.
36. MacCrimmon, M., & Tillers, P. (Eds.). (2002). The dynamics of judicial proof: Computation, logic and common sense (Vol. 94). Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Springer-Verlag.
37. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (Eds.). (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford Press.
38. Morgan, E. M. (1929). Functions of judge and jury in the determination of preliminary questions of fact. Harvard Law Review, 43, 165-192.
39. Nance, D. A. (1990). Conditional relevance reinterpreted. Boston University Law Review, 70, 448-507.
40. Nance, D. A. (1995). Conditional probative value and the reconstruction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Michigan Law Review, 94, 419-456.
41. Nesson, C. (1985). The evidence or the event? On judicial proof and the acceptability of verdicts. Harvard Law Review, 98, 1357-1392.
42. Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74, 979-1122.
43. Overstall, R. (1999). Mystical infallibility: Using probability theorems to sift DNA evidence. Appeal, 5, 28-37.
44. Park, R. C. (1996). Proving the case: Character and prior acts. Character evidence issues in the O. J. Simpson case. Colorado Law Review, 67, 747-776.
45. Park, R. C. (1998). Character at the crossroads. Hastings Law Journal, 49, 717-779.
46. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1993). The story model for jury decision making. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 192-221). New York: Cambridge University Press.
47. Posner, R. A. (1999). An economic approach to the law of evidence. Stanford Law Review, 51, 1477-1546.
48. Reagan, R. T. (2000). Supreme court decisions and probability theory: Getting the analysis right. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 77, 835-873.
49. Saks, M., & Kidd, R. (1980-81). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. Law and Society Review, 15, 123-125.
50. Sanchirico, C. W. (2001). Character evidence and the object of trial. Columbia Law Review, 101, 1227-1311.
51. Scolnicov, A. (2000). On the relevance of "relevance" to the theory of legal factfinding. Israel Law Review, 34, 260-301.
52. Smith, B. C., Penrod, S. D., Otto, A. L., & Park, R. C. (1996). Jurors' use of probabilistic evidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 49-82.
53. Snyder, M., & Thomsen, C. J. (1988). Interactions between therapists and clients: Hypothesis testing and behavioral confirmation. In D. C. Turk & P. Salovey (Eds.), Reasoning, inference, and judgment in clinical psychology (pp. 124-152). New York: Free Press.
54. Sox, H. C., Jr., Blatt, M. A., Higgins, M. C., & Marton, K. I. (1988). Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworth.
55. Tillers, P. (1994). Exaggerated and misleading reports of the death of conditional relevance. Michigan Law Review, 93, 478-484.
56. Vanous, S. (2002). Prejudicial nature of motive evidence. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.
57. Vanous, S., & Davis, D. (2001, April). Motive evidence: Probative or just prejudicial? Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Reno, NV.
58. Vanous, S., & Davis, D. (2002, April). Murder scripts: Perceived motives and means for spouse murder. Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Salt Lake City, UT
59. Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding domestic homicide. Boston: Northwestern University Press.
60. Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739-752.
61. Wells, G. L. (2003). Murder, extramarital affairs, and the issue of probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 27(6), 623-627.
62. Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155-167.
63. Yin, T. (2000). The probative values and pitfalls of drug courier profiles as probabilistic evidence. Texas Forum on Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, 5, 141-190.