Law Commons^™

Correcting Federal Rule Of Evidence 404 To Clarify The Inadmissibility Of Character Evidence, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Courts misinterpret Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) as an exception to Rule 404(b)(1)’s prohibition on character evidence rather than a mere clarification that emphasizes the permissibility of other-acts evidence whose relevance does not rely on propensity reasoning. This misinterpretation turns the rule against character evidence on its head by effectively replacing Rule 404 with a Rule 403 balancing—and one that incorrectly treats character inferences as probative rather than prejudicial, thereby favoring admissibility rather than exclusion. Consequently, as currently interpreted, Rule 404(b)(2) generates substantial unpredictability and verdicts based on conduct not at issue in a case.

I therefore propose that the …

The Incongruence Principle Of Evidence, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Evidence law assumes that the meaning and value of information at trial is equal to the meaning and value of the same information in the real world. This premise underlies evidence policy, judicial applications of evidence law, and instructions to jurors for evaluating evidence. However, it is incorrect, and the law’s failure to recognize this hinders its aims of accuracy and equality.

In this article, I draw on fields outside of law - including Bayesian inference and cognitive psychology - to develop a model of evidence that describes how jurors combine new evidence with prior beliefs (or “priors”) to make …

An Objective-Chance Exception To The Rule Against Character Evidence, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

A central principle of U.S. law is that individuals should be judged in court based on their actions and not on their character. Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence therefore prohibits evidence of an individual’s previous acts to prove that the individual acted in accordance with a certain character or propensity. But courts regularly deviate from or altogether ignore this rule, resulting in arbitrariness and judgments based on an individual's prior acts rather than on evidence regarding the events at issue in a case.

In this Article, I argue that at the center of the unpredictability surrounding the …

Credibility In Empirical Legal Analysis, Hillel J. Bavli

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Empirical analysis is central in both legal scholarship and litigation, but it is not credible. Researchers can manipulate data to arrive at any conclusion they wish to obtain. A practice known as data fishing—searching for and selectively reporting methods and results that are favorable to the researcher—entirely invalidates a study’s results by giving rise to false positives and false impressions. Nevertheless, it is prevalent in law, leading to false claims, incorrect verdicts, and destructive policy. In this article, I examine the harm that data fishing in empirical legal research causes. I then build on methods in the sciences to develop …

The Effects Of Comparable‐Case Guidance On Awards For Pain And Suffering And Punitive Damages: Evidence From A Randomized Controlled Trial, Hillel J. Bavli, Reagan Mozer

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Damage awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages are notoriously unpredictable. Courts provide minimal, if any, guidance to jurors determining these awards, and apply similarly minimal standards in reviewing them. Lawmakers have enacted crude measures, such as damage caps, aimed at curbing award unpredictability, while ignoring less drastic alternatives that involve guiding jurors with information regarding damage awards in comparable cases (“comparable‐case guidance” or “prior‐award information”). The primary objections to the latter approach are based on the argument that, because prior‐award information uses information regarding awards in distinct cases, it introduces the possibility of biasing the award, or distorting …

The Admissibility Of Sampling Evidence To Prove Individual Damages In Class Actions, Hillel J. Bavli, John Kenneth Felter

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The 2016 Supreme Court decision in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo revived the use of “representative” or sampling evidence in class actions. Federal courts are now more receptive to class plaintiffs’ efforts to prove classwide liability and, occasionally, aggregate damages, with sampling evidence. However, federal courts still routinely deny motions for class certification because they find that calculations of class members’ individual damages defeat the predominance prerequisite of Rule 23(b)(3). As a result, meritorious classwide claims founder. In this paper, we combine legal and statistical analyses and propose a novel solution to this dilemma that adheres to the Tysondecision …

Shrinkage Estimation In The Adjudication Of Civil Damage Claims, Hillel J. Bavli, Yang Chen

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Recent papers have highlighted the use of claim aggregation as a tool for reducing the unpredictability of legal outcomes. Specifically, it has been argued that sampling methods can be used in the class action context, and comparable-case guidance – information regarding awards in comparable cases as guidance for determining damage awards – can be used in the individual-claim context, to reduce variability and improve the accuracy of awards. In this paper, we examine a third form of claim aggregation based on a statistical method called “shrinkage estimation,” which is used to aggregate information and thereby improve estimation. We examine the …