Douglas N VanDerwerken, Mary Santi Fowler, Joseph B Kadane
Abstract Two recent Massachusetts Supreme Court cases, Commonwealth v. Long (2020) and Commonwealth v. Robinson-Van Rader (2023), have made it easier for defendants to successfully challenge police stops allegedly based on race or another protected class. Such challenges often consist, at least in part, of demonstrating that the racial distribution of those stopped by police differs meaningfully from the racial distribution of an appropriate reference population. We describe a series of cases, culminating in Long and Van Rader, that have clarified the legal standard required to mount a successful racial profiling challenge in Massachusetts as well as the nature of appropriate reference populations. In some of these cases, we served as expert witnesses.
{"title":"Reference populations for examining possible racial profiling","authors":"Douglas N VanDerwerken, Mary Santi Fowler, Joseph B Kadane","doi":"10.1093/lpr/mgad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad008","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Two recent Massachusetts Supreme Court cases, Commonwealth v. Long (2020) and Commonwealth v. Robinson-Van Rader (2023), have made it easier for defendants to successfully challenge police stops allegedly based on race or another protected class. Such challenges often consist, at least in part, of demonstrating that the racial distribution of those stopped by police differs meaningfully from the racial distribution of an appropriate reference population. We describe a series of cases, culminating in Long and Van Rader, that have clarified the legal standard required to mount a successful racial profiling challenge in Massachusetts as well as the nature of appropriate reference populations. In some of these cases, we served as expert witnesses.","PeriodicalId":253362,"journal":{"name":"Law, Probability and Risk","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136160053","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Studying the repeatability and reproducibility of decisions made during forensic examinations is important in order to better understand variation in decisions and establish confidence in procedures. For disciplines that rely on comparisons made by trained examiners such as for latent prints, handwriting, and cartridge cases, it has been recommended that ‘black-box’ studies be used to estimate the reliability and validity of decisions. In a typical black-box study, examiners are asked to judge samples of evidence as they would in practice, and their decisions are recorded; the ground truth about samples is known by the study designers. The design for such studies includes repeated assessments on forensic samples by different examiners and additionally, it is common for a subset of examiners to provide repeated assessments on the same evidence samples. We demonstrate a statistical approach to analyse the data collected across these repeated trials that offers the following advantages: i) we can make joint inference about repeatability and reproducibility while utilizing both the intra-examiner and inter-examiner data, ii) we can account for examiner–sample interactions that may impact the decision-making process. We demonstrate the approach first for continuous outcomes such as where decisions are made on an ordinal scale with many categories. The approach is next applied to binary decisions and results are presented on the data from two black-box studies.
{"title":"Combining reproducibility and repeatability studies with applications in forensic science","authors":"Hina Arora, Naomi Kaplan-Damary, Hal S Stern","doi":"10.1093/lpr/mgad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad007","url":null,"abstract":"Studying the repeatability and reproducibility of decisions made during forensic examinations is important in order to better understand variation in decisions and establish confidence in procedures. For disciplines that rely on comparisons made by trained examiners such as for latent prints, handwriting, and cartridge cases, it has been recommended that ‘black-box’ studies be used to estimate the reliability and validity of decisions. In a typical black-box study, examiners are asked to judge samples of evidence as they would in practice, and their decisions are recorded; the ground truth about samples is known by the study designers. The design for such studies includes repeated assessments on forensic samples by different examiners and additionally, it is common for a subset of examiners to provide repeated assessments on the same evidence samples. We demonstrate a statistical approach to analyse the data collected across these repeated trials that offers the following advantages: i) we can make joint inference about repeatability and reproducibility while utilizing both the intra-examiner and inter-examiner data, ii) we can account for examiner–sample interactions that may impact the decision-making process. We demonstrate the approach first for continuous outcomes such as where decisions are made on an ordinal scale with many categories. The approach is next applied to binary decisions and results are presented on the data from two black-box studies.","PeriodicalId":253362,"journal":{"name":"Law, Probability and Risk","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135668083","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Correction to: Priors neutral between the parties: The Batson motion in <i>Idaho v. Ish</i>","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/lpr/mgad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/lpr/mgad006","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":253362,"journal":{"name":"Law, Probability and Risk","volume":"35 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136236475","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：