|
Using
FactLogic, you can demonstrate exactly which facts could cause injustice and
the degree to which it will be a problem – if any.
To
demonstrate possible injustice within a venue, take the following steps:
-
Select The Alternate Venue.
-
Create The Case. Create your case by entering some case information,
the key facts, and one or more assertions to be proved by the facts.
-
Copy The Case. Copy the case so you won’t mingle evaluations from
the two venues. Simply click, "Copy Case."
-
Select Evaluators. Randomly draw a large number of evaluators from
each venue, and assign them to the appropriate copy of the case.
-
Select Measures of Injustice. Each evaluator will judge the
probabilities for each fact. From these judgments, FactLogic will
determine the probably that each assertion is true, the margin (defined
below), and predict the verdict. Select a value to
measure possible injustice.
-
Analyze Results. The statistics computed by FactLogic may
demonstrate that injustice could result in the current venue. If there
is any doubt, it can easily be demonstrated by conducting a test
of significance on any measure of injustice. Basically, the test would
determine whether the selected measure from the venues are significantly
different.
1.
Create and Copy The Case
Create your case.
Include, at least, the assertion of most interest to the change of venue
request at least, the key facts for this or other assertions.
Make a copy of
your case for each venue so that results aren't mingled (i.e., simply click,
Copy Case).
2.
Select Evaluators
Select
two groups of evaluators, one in the current venue and one in the proposed
venue. Evaluators should be drawn randomly from the venire in each venue. Local
records or market research companies can provide
evaluators¹:
Evaluator
Information. If possible, obtain
demographic characteristics and life experience information from the two groups of
evaluators. It will help with subsequent jury selection: Evaluators who have certain
characteristics or experiences might judge key facts in certain ways, and you need to know
this before voir dire.
Number of
Evaluators.
The two groups of evaluators needn't be the same size, but larger is
better. The size will be dictated
by either
3,
Select Measures of Injustice
FactLogic
provides the
following four values. Any of them could be considered measures of injustice:
Measure Provided
Directly by Evaluators:
Measures Determined by FactLogic
(from values provided by evaluators): Since the real facts are not known
at this time, the following measures should be taken lightly.
-
Probability the assertion is true.
-
Difference between the probability the assertion is true and the
standard of proof (i.e., preponderance of the evidence). This difference is a more accurate measure of
injustice than is the probability an assertion is true (by itself) because jurors decide
on this difference. This difference will be called the margin
in the following text.
-
Predicted
verdict.
Select any of
these measures.
4.
Analyze Results
Any of the measures of injustice listed in Section 3 can be analyzed. The
margin, the difference between the probability the assertion is true and the standard of proof, is unusually compelling.
To justify a change of venue, compare the margin from the
current venue to the margin from the proposed venue.
If the difference between these two margins is significant, the
justification for a change of venue is scientifically demonstrated. However,
if the probabilities the assertions are true are small, the request for a change of
venue might not be justified because injustice would probably
insignificant.
Convex
Corporation can provide the statistical tests of significance for any
measures you choose.
|
