Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Toward an Empirical Approach to Evidentiary Ruling

  • Commentary
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

This paper responds to criticisms/misconstruals of our measure of the maximum probative value of evidence (D. Davis & W. C. Follette, 2002), and our conclusions regarding the potentially prejudicial role of “intuitive profiling” evidence, including motive. We argue that R. D. Friedman and R. C. Park's (2003) criticisms and example cases are largely based on inappropriate violation of the presumption of innocence. Further, we address the merits of our absolute difference measure of probative value versus those of the Bayesian likelihood ratio championed by D. H. Kaye and J. J. Koehler (2003). We recommend methods for presentation of measures of evidence utility that convey complexities of interdependence between new and existing evidence. Finally, we propose a “probable cause” standard for admission of potentially prejudicial evidence, dictating that admissibility of such evidence should be contingent upon other substantial evidence of guilt.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Armour, J. D. (1994). Race ipsa loquitur: Of reasonable racists, intelligent Bayesians, and involuntary Negrophobes. Stanford Law Review, 46, 781–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, V. C. (1980). The myth of conditional relevancy. Georgia Law Review, 14, 435.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callen, C. R. (1996). Proving the case: Character and prior acts. Colorado Law Review, 67, 777–787.

    Google Scholar 

  • Copeland, J., & Snyder, M. (1995). When counselors confirm: A functional analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1210–1221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crump, D. (1997). On the uses of irrelevant evidence. Houston Law Review, 34, 1–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. D. (1986). A close look at probative value. Boston University Law Review, 66, 733–759.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. D. (1991). Character impeachment evidence: Psycho-Bayesian[!?] analysis and a proposed overhaul. UCLA Law Review, 38, 655–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. D. (1994). Conditional probative value: Neoclassicism without myth. Michigan Law Review, 93, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. D. (1995). Refining conditional probative value. Michigan Law Review, 94, 457–465.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. D. (1997). Irrelevance, minimal relevance, and meta-relevance. Houston Law Review, 34, 55–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. D. (2000). A presumption of innocence, not of even odds. Stanford Law Review, 52, 873–887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R. D., & Park, R. C. (2003). Sometimes what everybody thinks they know is true. Law and Human Behavior, 27 (6), 629–644.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garbolino, P. (2001). Explaining relevance. Cardozo Law Review, 22, 1503–1521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gigerenzer, G. (2000). Adaptive thinking: Rationality in the real world. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grady, D. (2003, June 25). Study finds new risks in hormone therapy. New York times.

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1973). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1986). Quantifying probative value. Boston University Law Review, 66, 761–766.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1987). The polygraph and the PVP. Statistical Science, 2, 223–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H. (1993). DNA evidence: Probability, population genetics, and the courts. Harvard Journal of Law and Technology, 7, 101–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, D. H., & Koehler, J. J. (2003). The misquantification of probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 27(6), 645–659.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, D. (2001). An almost perfect murder: The saga of Michael Franklin. McLean, VA: IndyPublish.com.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J., Chia, A., & Lindsey, J. S. (1995). The random match probability in DNA evidence: Irrelevant and prejudicial? Jurimetrics Journal, 35, 201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koski, D. D. (2001). Jury decisionmaking in rape trials: A review and empirical assessment. Criminal Law Bulletin, 38, 21–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. (1977). Modeling relevance. Michigan Law Review, 75, 1021.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert, R. (2001). The economic analysis of evidence law: Common sense on stilts. Virginia Law Review, 87, 1619–1712.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimmon, M., & Tillers, P. (Eds.). (2002). The dynamics of judicial proof: Computation, logic and common sense (Vol. 94). Heidelberg, Germany: Physica-Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, E. M. (1929). Functions of judge and jury in the determination of preliminary questions of fact. Harvard Law Review, 43, 165–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nance, D. A. (1990). Conditional relevance reinterpreted. Boston University Law Review, 70, 448–507.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nance, D. A. (1995). Conditional probative value and the reconstruction of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Michigan Law Review, 94, 419–456.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesson, C. (1985). The evidence or the event? On judicial proof and the acceptability of verdicts. Harvard Law Review, 98, 1357–1392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ofshe, R. J., & Leo, R. A. (1997). The decision to confess falsely: Rational choice and irrational action. Denver University Law Review, 74, 979–1122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Overstall, R. (1999). Mystical infallibility: Using probability theorems to sift DNA evidence. Appeal, 5, 28–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, R. C. (1998). Character at the crossroads. Hastings Law Journal, 49, 717–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, R. A. (1999). An economic approach to the law of evidence. Stanford Law Review, 51, 1477–1546.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagan, R. T. (2000). Supreme court decisions and probability theory: Getting the analysis right. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, 77, 835–873.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saks, M., & Kidd, R. (1980–81). Human information processing and adjudication: Trial by heuristics. Law and Society Review, 15, 123–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchirico, C. W. (2001). Character evidence and the object of trial. Columbia Law Review, 101, 1227–1311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scolnicov, A. (2000). On the relevance of "relevance" to the theory of legal factfinding. Israel Law Review, 34, 260–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sox, H. C., Jr., Blatt, M. A., Higgins, M. C., & Marton, K. I. (1988). Medical decision making. Boston: Butterworth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tillers, P. (1994). Exaggerated and misleading reports of the death of conditional relevance. Michigan Law Review, 93, 478–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanous, S. (2002). Prejudicial nature of motive evidence. Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of Nevada, Reno.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanous, S., & Davis, D. (2001, April). Motive evidence: Probative or just prejudicial? Paper presented at the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Reno, NV.

  • 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.

  • Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding domestic homicide. Boston: Northwestern University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: Is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739–752.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (2003). Murder, extramarital affairs, and the issue of probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 27(6), 623–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L., & Olson, E. A. (2002). Eyewitness identification: Information gain from incriminating and exonerating behaviors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 8, 155–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Nevada, Reno, Nevada

    Deborah Davis & William C. Follette

Authors
  1. Deborah Davis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. William C. Follette
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

About this article

Cite this article

Davis, D., Follette, W.C. Toward an Empirical Approach to Evidentiary Ruling. Law Hum Behav 27, 661–684 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000004893.92114.d9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAHU.0000004893.92114.d9

Search

Navigation