Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Gerd Gigerenzer (2002)
Calculated Risks: How to Know When Numbers Deceive You
(1995)
Accused killer pursued women always, jury told
Franklin guilty of murder: Jury finds special circumstances true. Sacramento Bee
(2001)
An almost perfect murder: The saga of Michael Franklin
D. Kaye (1985)
Quantifying Probative ValueEvidence & Evidentiary Procedure eJournal
R. Park (1998)
Character at the CrossroadsHastings Law Journal, 49
Accused killer pursued women always, jury told. Sacramento Bee
A close look at probative value
Postscript : On quantifying probative value
Saturday Today (NBC television broadcast
Franklin guilty of murder : Jury finds special circumstances true
(1986)
profiling, and the “postdiction
R. Park (1996)
Character Evidence Issues in the O.J. Simpson Case–Or, Rationales of the Character Evidence Ban, With Illustrations from the Simpson CaseUniversity of Colorado Law Review, 67
Richard Friedman (2000)
A Presumption of Innocence, Not of Even OddsStanford Law Review, 52
Woman dreaded Sierra trip, boss testifies
Stephen Saltzburg (1978)
A Special Aspect of Relevance: Countering Negative Inferences Associated with the Absence of EvidenceCalifornia Law Review, 66
I. Good (1995)
When batterer turns murdererNature, 375
D. H. Kaye (1986)
Quantifying probative valueBoston University Law Review, 66
(1995)
Risk factors associated with non-lethal violence against women by marital partners
Woman dreaded Sierra trip , boss testifies , Sacramento Bee
D. Davis, W. Follette (2002)
Rethinking the Probative Value of Evidence: Base Rates, Intuitive Profiling, and the “Postdiction” of BehaviorLaw and Human Behavior, 26
N. Spencer, Gillian Madden, C. Purtill, Joseph Ewing (2002)
Assessing the evidence.Occasional paper, 82
R. D. Friedman (1996)
Assessing evidenceMichigan L. R., 94
I. Good (1996)
When batterer becomes murdererNature, 381
This essay responds to D. Davis and W. C. Follette (2002), who question the value of motive evidence in murder cases. They argue that the evidence that a husband had extramarital affairs, that he heavily insured his wife’s life, or that he battered his wife is ordinarily of infinitesimal probative value. We disagree. To be sure, it would be foolish to predict solely on the basis of such evidence that a husband will murder his wife. However, when this kind of evidence is combined with other evidence in a realistic murder case, the evidence can be quite probative. We analyze cases in which it is virtually certain that the victim was murdered but unclear who murdered her, and in which it is uncertain whether the husband murdered the wife or she died by accident. We show that in each case motive evidence, such as a history of battering or of infidelity, can substantially increase the odds of the husband’s guilt. We also consider the actual case on which Davis and Follette base their paper. We argue that testimony of Davis on the basis of the analysis presented in their paper was properly excluded, for it would have been misleading and unhelpful.
Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association
Published: Dec 1, 2003
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.