Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Is Proof Of Statistical Significance Relevant?, D.H. Kaye
Is Proof Of Statistical Significance Relevant?, D.H. Kaye
Washington Law Review
This article examines the status of significance testing in litigation. Part I describes the case law on the need for the procedure. Part II explains the nature and terminology of hypothesis testing as used in court. Part III enumerates some of the problems that arise in these forensic applications, and Part IV pursues one such problem-that of selecting a "significance level." These sections show that explicit hypothesis testing is poorly suited for courtroom use. Statements as to what results are or are not "statistically significant" should be inadmissible. Part V suggests the use of other statistical tools and terms that …
Admission Of Evidence Of Other Misconduct In Washington To Prove Intent Or Absence Of Mistake Or Accident: The Logical Inconsistencies Of Evidence Rule 404(B), Eric D. Lansverk
Admission Of Evidence Of Other Misconduct In Washington To Prove Intent Or Absence Of Mistake Or Accident: The Logical Inconsistencies Of Evidence Rule 404(B), Eric D. Lansverk
Washington Law Review
In Washington, the introduction of evidence of other misconduct to show intent or absence of mistake or accident has proven particularly troublesome. Washington courts have made no attempt to delineate the differences between proof of intent and proof of absence of mistake or accident. Nor have they satisfactorily distinguished either of the proofs from a mere showing of propensity to commit crime. By failing to make these distinctions, the courts undermine the letter and spirit of ER 404(b). The lack of clear standards to guide application of the intent and absence of mistake or accident aspects of ER 404(b) leaves …