Important Evidence Evaluation Scenario/Question

[BluffTHIS!]

I'm not an attorney, but I think I know enough from watching hundreds of episodes of Law & Order that an appellate court can't reverse factual determinations of a jury, only rule on the admissibility or not of evidence that lead a jury to a factual determination. So to be nitpicky, I think the situation is better modified to one where this is the trial judge presiding over a bench trial, in which he thus is the one making factual determinations.

Even in that context, the real question is whether even the rare shoe size evidence is sufficient in itself to warrant a conviction on circumstantial evidence, or whether the remaining circumstantial evidence is too weak to convict without it.

[creedofhubris]

It depends on how many people they investigated.

If the suspect pool was small, then the shoe size rarity makes him more likely to be guilty.

If the suspect pool was large (i.e. they "rounded up the usual suspects" and checked 1000 guys' shoe sizes) then it's not particularly important in and of itself.

[Dot_the_Bot]

[ QUOTE ]
A guy is convicted of murder. His lawyers appeal. A transcript of the trial is read by the appeal judge. The evidence is circumstantial. One piece of evidence is that the footprint of the killer is the same shoe size as the defendent.

After reading through the transcript the judge feels like their is a 5% chance the guy is innocent. It makes him want to find an excuse to reverse the conviction. While mulling things over his secretary comes in to tell him that she mistyped something. The shoe size that matched was not the common 10D she typed but rather the much rarer 12B.

Upon hearing this the judge breathes a sigh of relief, reevaluates the guys chance of innocence to well below one percent, and rejects the appeal.

Was the judge completely correct to reassess this way? Somewhat correct? Or really off base? Logically, not legally, speaking.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Im sorry what's the question? And why is the secretary of the judge typing transcripts?...wait MIStyping transcripts?

Okay, Ill pretend this question makes sense........nope, too hard, sorry. Logically the judge should dismiss the appeal without prejudice until its filed with certified transcripts...I mean while the appellent may appear 4% more guilty at this point, the whole transcript is suddenly 95% more suspect than before he found out his goofy secretary (mis)typed it.

[David Sklansky]

It seems that every time I try to make a question easier on the eye by putting it in story format, people focus on the wrong issues. All I want to know is whether the judge is correct in seriously reducing his opinion as to the defendent's innocence based on his discovery that the shoe size is much rarer.

[RJT]

Remember, the OP specifically asks “Logically, not legally, speaking”.

There are two things to consider. 1) the rarity of the shoe size (kind of like - how rare are Bruno Magli shoes?) and 2) The materiality of 5% and "well below 1%" in the context of evaluating evidence in a murder trial.

Without guidelines the numbers (5% and 1%) don’t have anything to relate to. This is similar to the percentage of religion being correct. In the context of God is 5% good odds or bad odds? From the tone of the question, I assume the OP feels “well below one percent” makes a world of difference. (And it very well might for most people, I won’t disagree.)

Also, when looking at numbers - ½% is what, 10 times less likes than 5%. 1% is 5 times less likely. Everything is relative. Should it matter? Can we get a bit more specific to what “well below” means?

The fact that the shoes size is now rare, rather than common, makes a big difference for sure. In fact it might make 1% and 5% moot. Perhaps we must find him guilty regardless of 5 or 1%.

The other question that needs clarified is whether we are talking about letting the guy go free or sending back for a new trial. The OP talks about reversing the conviction. Does this matter? I think it does. Should it matter?

p.s. My questions are rhetorical. Just pointing out all the things to consider when looking at the question logically. I really am not trying to be a nit.

[Gabe]

I few months ago I got called for jury duty on a criminal case. On the way into the court room they gave us a list of about 20 questions.

Most of them were like: “Have you ever been convicted of a felony.”

Number 17 was: “If a person is arrested, charged, and on trial for a crime, would you think he is more likely guilty than not guilty?”

The judge then told us to, one at a time, state our occupation, marital status, and tell if we answered yes to any question.

When he got to me I said that I answered yes to 17. The judge asked “Why?”

I said: “Well, if half the people the district attorney charged and put on trial were innocent, we would have heard of it, and the public wouldn’t stand for it.”

The judge asked me if I was aware of presumption of innocence. This didn’t seem to me to have anything to do with my argument, but I told him that I was.

Then the judge asked me: “If you were on trial, would you want a jury of people that thought the way I did?”

I said: “No, your honor, I would like jurors that thought I was more likely innocent.”

He then asked: “Do you think you can be fair and unbiased juror in this case?”

I said: “Not if I have to think the defendant has a 50% chance or better to be innocent.”

He excused me.

[RJT]

The new evidence changes the judge’s confidence factor by a minimum 5 times - right? (Perhap 10 times his confidence or more.)

[elrudo]

I think the judge is certainly correct to re-evaluate.

Why shouldnt he, given that extra large footprints are very rare, and that the footprint matches for the suspect ?

However, I do not know if the adjustment from 5% to below 1% is reasonable, and if <1%innocent is a reason not to send the case back when 5% or more is.

[LandonM]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems that every time I try to make a question easier on the eye by putting it in story format, people focus on the wrong issues. All I want to know is whether the judge is correct in seriously reducing his opinion as to the defendent's innocence based on his discovery that the shoe size is much rarer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends entirely on the significance the shoe size played in his initial decision-making process when contrasted against the body of fact.

It's more dependent on the other facts at-large than it is on the shoe-size itself, or the rarity thereof.
You're trying to reduce the decision to a matter of pure logic, when in reality, it is a broader matter of existing circumstance.
The answer isn't clinical, it's textural.

If your goal was to isolate some sort of logical precept, you would have been better off using a different hypothetical.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It seems that every time I try to make a question easier on the eye by putting it in story format, people focus on the wrong issues. All I want to know is whether the judge is correct in seriously reducing his opinion as to the defendent's innocence based on his discovery that the shoe size is much rarer.

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends entirely on the significance the shoe size played in his initial decision-making process when contrasted against the body of fact.

It's more dependent on the other facts at-large than it is on the shoe-size itself, or the rarity thereof.
You're trying to reduce the decision to a matter of pure logic, when in reality, it is a broader matter of existing circumstance.
The answer isn't clinical, it's textural.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not a matter of the shoe size in relation to the body of evidence. It is a matter of 1 % and 5% as it relates to his confidence level. He is now at least 5 times more confident (or less confident - not sure how the OP is stated - you get what I am saying hopefully.)

The judge is definitely correct “in seriously reducing his opinion”. (The question what he does about this is another matter.)