IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jorssa/v154y1991i1p49-59.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Statistical Evidence in the US Courts: An Appraisal

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen E. Fienberg
  • Miron L. Straf

Abstract

Over the past 30 years, a dramatic change has taken place with respect to the role of statistical evidence in American legal proceedings. From a situation in the early 1960s when statistical evidence was rarely allowed into evidence the US courts have moved to a position in which the use of statistical arguments and data is common and statistical experts often appear on opposing sides, presenting conflicting testimony. During the mid‐1980s a panel appointed by the National Research Council reviewed the then recent use of statistics as evidence and, in a recently published report, the panel described the current status of statistical evidence, making recommendations that focus on three major areas: the maintenance of professional autonomy of statistical experts, the enhancement courtroom presentation of statistical evidence and implications for legal and statistical education.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen E. Fienberg & Miron L. Straf, 1991. "Statistical Evidence in the US Courts: An Appraisal," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 154(1), pages 49-59, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:154:y:1991:i:1:p:49-59
    DOI: 10.2307/2982694
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/2982694
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2307/2982694?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anand Desai, 2008. "Quantitative methods, economics, and or models," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(3), pages 640-669.
    2. Luke M. Froeb & Bernhard Ganglmair & Steven Tschantz, 2016. "Adversarial Decision Making: Choosing between Models Constructed by Interested Parties," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(3), pages 527-548.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jorssa:v:154:y:1991:i:1:p:49-59. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rssssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.