3. Types of Evaluators

Evaluations can be defined by the populations from which the evaluators come. FactLogic allows you achieve the following types of values from these three populations:

• Emulated Value. Evaluators are similar to the fact finders
  

• Fact Finder Value. Evaluators are the fact finders (i.e., those appointed to determine the realities of a case)
  

• Survey Value. Evaluators
  o are aware of the opportunity to evaluate the case, and
  o they choose to evaluate it.

The types of cases that utilize these types of evaluators are listed in corresponding columns of the table, How To Use Factlogic. All types of evaluations evaluate the assertions, but the Emulated Value allows the verdict to be predicted.

3.1 Emulated Value

Use the Emulated Value for cases that may go to trial. For these cases, assertions are evaluated, and the verdict is predicted. Cases can be evaluated in the presence of persuasion, and they are evaluated both logically and intuitively

The attorney can present different persuasions to the evaluators, usually during a mock trial. For each version of persuasion, the attorney can vary any of the following:

• Opening Statements

• Closing Arguments

• Witnesses

• Exhibits

• Evaluators.

For each version of persuasion, identify it on a page of FactLogic software, and copy the case so evaluations of different versions are not mingled (i.e., simply click, Copy Case).

A. Evaluate An Assertion

For cases that may go to trial, assertions are causes of action and their elements. Evaluators judge the facts by quantifying their judgments as probabilities. After they judge the facts to evaluate an assertion, they are also asked to evaluate the same assertion intuitively.

Evaluations should occur under the following conditions:

• Evaluators should be drawn randomly from a population of evaluators that is similar to the venue, venire, or selected jurors (i.e., whichever group is to be emulated).

• Evaluators should not communicate. It is true that fact finders communicate (i.e., deliberate), but, since it is impossible to anticipate and emulate unusually persuasive fact finders, it seems better not to try. The absence of communication tends to preserve unbiased judgments.

• Each assertion is evaluated logically and intuitively:
  
  o Logical Evaluation. Evaluators evaluate the assertion logically (by expressing their judgments as probabilities so Factlogic can combine the probabilities according to probability theory), and express the logical evaluation as the probability the assertion is true.
  o Intuitive Evaluation. FactFinders (e.g., judges or jurors) will evaluate assertions intuitively. Since the purpose is to emulate their judgments, evaluators are asked to also evaluate assertions intuitively: They judge the facts (without quantifying them), evaluate the assertion intuitively, and express the intuitive evaluation as the probability the assertion is true.

Even though fact finders in a trial will evaluate assertions intuitively, the logical evaluation is the most accurate evaluation possible (given the knowledge and wisdom of the judgments of the facts). The statistics described in Section 2.4.2 are determined.

B. Predict The Verdict

To predict a verdict, FactLogic requires multiple evaluators - the more, the better. Then it uses the theory of probability and statistics to coordinate the following data:

• The verdict criteria for the case

• The probability the assertion is true (for each assertion and each evaluator)

• The standard of proof (for each evaluator, if appropriate).

The predicted verdict is expressed as the probability the verdict will be for the plaintiff/prosecution. Factlogic provides three verdict scenarios:

• Probability = 0% that the verdict will be for the plaintiff/prosecution (This scenario is equivalent to a verdict for the defendant.)

• Probability = that which is predicted from evaluators that the verdict will be for the plaintiff/prosecution[7]

• Probability = 100% that the verdict will be for the plaintiff/prosecution

When the administrator creates or edits the case, he/she enters pre-trial estimates of the interests of each vested party (i.e., costs, fees, damages, etc.). FactLogic then converts the pre-trial estimates to post-trial estimates for

• All vested parties

• The three verdict scenarios

• Any and all assertions computed from any group of evaluators..

3.2 Fact Finder Value

Use the Fact Finder Value for cases in which the probability the assertion is true should be estimated as accurately as possible by the appropriate fact finders. FactLogic supports 16 types of cases that should be evaluated by fact finders. Evaluations should result from the following conditions:

• Fact finders should be drawn randomly from the population of fact finders (e.g., fact finders should be assigned to evaluate sex discrimination cases, without regard to gender).
  

• Fact finders should not communicate.
  

• Judgments should be combined logically. (Factlogic combines the judgments of the independent facts according to the theory of probability to determine the logical probability the assertion is true.)

Evaluations consist of evaluations of the assertions and the probabilities for each fact from each fact finder. The statistics described in Section 2.4.2 are determined.

3.3 Survey Value

Use the (public) Survey Value to obtain judgments and opinions from any group of evaluators you desire. You must distribute (e.g., publish, advertise, etc.) the Web address of the case to the desired group. FactLogic accommodates seven types of cases that should be evaluated by the Survey Value. Since evaluators aren't assigned, they are anonymous. You would use the Survey Value to:

• Generate interest and a sense of community from a media audience.

• Measure opinions of the public, an organization, a class of students, etc.

• Publicize a case.

• Determine if a change of venue is justified.

• Create an informal (i.e., "unscientific") mock jury.

• Etc.

Evaluations should result from the following conditions:

• Evaluators are from a population who know the Web address of your case and also choose to evaluate it. They are anonymous.
  

• Evaluators should not communicate.
  

• Judgments should be combined logically. (Factlogic combines the judgments of the independent facts according to the theory of probability to determine the logical probability the assertion is true.)

The statistics described in Section 2.4.2 are determined.

[7] Of course, the estimated probability that the verdict will be for the plaintiff/prosecutor will never occur (unless it happens to be 0% or 100%), but it is the “best guess.”