5 100 Analysis of Evidence b, Deductive reasoning. Deductive logic is the prog ley werd sal major premise to a particular factual propositio here} illustration isfAll men are mortal; Socrates is a manitl there exis fy If the major and minor premises are true, it 4 uaiversal Sion is true. In a legal the applicable rule of law Major ultimate probandum is the minor premise.)In the last proanice of law defining murder, a major premise, and the ultim fe be proved to satisfy that rule, a minor premise fag Pages probandum was true( then would necessarily be the « ofmurder, mle of (aw « tive reasoning?’ In analyzing the available ae arshaling the inferences that those data sup 5 the lawyer relies primarily on inductive reasoning. The investigation” developed in the preceding section (atip Process of inductive reasoning, The nature of that form further in the discussion of generalizations that follow. izationssThere isanecessary relationship b uve reasoning that every lawyer should understand,” soning in analyzing the relationships between a 5] and a proposition to be proved may be inductive, but eff relationships requires the application of a form of quasi: Wigmore noted the essential Point: ing and m The point requires further development, * The importance of ‘generalizations,© Our argumentsost contexts, inductive reasoning oper, ssciously identify the generalizations i. she is required to justify her conch ard probably imp ence relied, as opposed to a es justifies her conclusiog at her friend John did not attend the teacher to conclude that Joh sed by circumstances beyond his ¢ ‘o you know his car would not start al context, it is free inference depen c antlis identify potential fé can be simply illustrated. ‘cople would accept the gener itted a violent crime will flee gation? the cadet learns (Pa): “Wa "gout of Y’s home at 4:45 p.m. 0 and proposition 4 supports “crime shortly after it was comt “applicable, the cadet mi ’ be applied to justify * “flight” to X’s guilt can be some ‘nstances, a persoy 7 ee ws MOte detailed “iy nd its Pra th wi ane value as102 Analysis of Evidence ii, A note on the nature of generalizations. Generalizations can be, three axes ~ a generality axis, a reliability axis, and a source axi of the(generalitymaxisjare marked byygeneralizationsiinethe most, 3 frhiG of generalizations that haye been made.specific to 7 Precise Case Ore Gentcali- they are to be applied! For example; the abstract, ‘Sial¥OHie! instances Vahons* fleeing from the sceneofviolent crime may be guilty of thatcrime? the context specific, “It is possible that a person dressed in a suit anc seen emerging from a ten-unit apartment building and walking rap bus stop 100 yards from the building shortly after a victim had or ae with a hammer in that building may be guilty of the crime” few Atone end of thesteliabilitylaeigia ‘cientific laws (stich 'ag well-founded scientific Opinions (such as the conclusions of a [ expert based upon comparison of ‘cimens of handwriting lles - cueabhe Written bythe same individual) sutinemminay conclusionsb Lavo, | lexperience (for instance, everyone knows thata driver must stop fo oe middle monly held, but unproven or unprovable; a y be strongly held irrespective 4 instance, women do not 00d trial lawyers ‘Dero parents; whites cannot faily se lawyers; men are trongly held. but still operative beliefs (fo, conform to her motives), Finally, the soureetasig lizatic whose source the -sapeated identify. Based upon personal experience, r sonal Florida, the sun shines for some period of tim, nye their studies the authors believe,. «trong: Howevels after doing some pleto construct cogent arguments th ible toe ssonable doubt” 4 good lawyer must be able to a . = her own case aS well as those of is sufficient to note that, in legal contes hort of certainty is an inevitable a ae jaw model of adjudication assum any value if it is limited to demon: tr rfection. The ply provides analytic tools for identit + of evidence always involves on escribed — assertion, explanation al structure of the argument from rguments, or the arguments in a ¢a\ nga judgment. These are questions | have become prominent in the ¢t robabilistic reasoning in forensic practical importance for the k :ppraise the arguments that can be mas problems associated with evaluation 9 and the appendix on probability. five central coneé rion /compound (and comp! inferences, 4. order to suces \o establish each of several facts in facts in issue in the alternative, typically has to prove (A) that the , 34 Appendix I, “Probability and. Proof: Some! University of London, appears atNecessary but dangerous re ty De degree of certainty) with which the generaia argu grate these materials and present mone ome eraizations play Inthe next ection, we focus om how tie use of generalizations in determining bow evidence Necessary but dangerous: Generajg and stories in argumentation about tom pion Ha section 3, we examine the wayin hich gee 4 a tegle egg divferences that stem from those clasifcations. Thali 7 as Me heir non rents 1 Dongeee 6 y janie) ene aicunhon am fret tere Fe cognitive Peaarnarennet qerectey “o Ore of basic norman ana his view in Section 4 Section 5 idetifis the die hat stem {Gees then, our inferences from fact to fact depend upon our bet ve conclude withan examin efeannecon boven act and it, penelitions about hc wh ay 3 alations. Weconclude wthan exminongeeriatins tr the workofcrtringinfrences ese itslintothargpean Magy | BI acioner’s standpoint ieations (Sidewick (184) 9) icinggeet | Wie have seen that generalizations are almost always necessary a every step in inferential reasoning, but that they can often be toa hy aps all and certainly most inferences from particular to particular depend wees pointsin an argument (Chapter 3). Similars, wehave centres’ | "marasatt generalization.” When the usally ve geri a ‘otjstan alternative to analytical approaches such sthechartmeting yo | Shite nductve reasoning upon whic the propose infers deen complement themin important ways (Chapter 6) Accordingtosome ea ant edn +g dedicte frm nd hat fos it fd paconers stories ace prycologcalynecesiy to decison eget | “liao being assed sa major prem Howe ssues of fact. Yet another strand in the literature'suggests that restos | Sally hedged in some way: 1 legal contexts, In ‘atthe nature of generalizations and stores, a reasons why they can be labeled dangerous, some, ‘techniques for navigating them in tigi, 1, pegrees of‘Analysis of Evidence r However such estimates need to be treated with great theestimate? Who is making the estimate? Might it aay otherwise unreliabl le Is it an example of fal However, an inference openly based on a fu macy weak: reslinbe< [X.and Y sometimes occur sim This isa case of ‘Therefore ¥ may have occurred simultaneously: yetween the strength of sup {tis important to distinguish b pted as true, Here we find an inten dts probative force itis acce “operation of generalizations in the ind of argument r ANDY, nore pansion fe r there are many other possi pointing in the opposite direction. ‘Edith and Freddie. ‘We could move t to the intermediate probandunt that Edith infl | po izations about the relations between an ok ght argue that in such relationships, 5 aacewernen are eeu) ible generalizations that might be imag Consider again the diferencia wa number of diferent rosa enced Fred Those der won fore ‘= Necessary but dangerous 265 Jn between the strength of support for tHe Generalization > he ceneralization, if itis accepted aot. vities. Edith and Freddie canbe characterizedin gender vers, person lc. The contert can be ch the generalization: in intimate relationships ioe 4. Each ofthe elements could tationships of this notive terms. To for the layer, se ie formulation may set up an irefitable oe sion sous fhe ision-maker acept the ut in ost cages the generalization wel ely shared no? ery Precise, a north ied oo dominate all YOUNEEE such a gene’ import cise, spec tif level of abstraction) js, There isa fourth axis cation scheme — what might Be Par ality axis refers HOW Widely ved within te particular community resolved. a rt softnecommonalty spectrums ener small number of people! Examples might any ofthe other three axes =Hpe6 Analysis of Evidence Anaiyss of ENCES tified ab by placing them alonstne axes ide ibe generalizations arc ‘used to des fons are 0 The decrptions employed often conc Foran Novels lnwyers and others rather than disci lose, differen © MUSt Work with EY Frercting and ring aFLIENSaOUUte y rath eee peste of the descriptions commonly used and ofthe roles that gy Speer jantiony canbe categorized in cert vaya for qin 3 offact, it i use tg en, om rom the standpoint oft oe’ , in turn can be classi Toeblef generalizations. n the contey reg. ent considerations apply to each eatgory. gee ; cof reliability ranging from well-tesedang 2 crnagpite Bie "such,as those associated with the law of gear cee eeeonctine unesabe inuions, sich s the gene Bier that running from the scene of a crime is evidenss St ins bdupon ie ererypes—sichas reader or iplcty in argument in a particuércaemy bout personal habits or charter, oF oa pi Necessary but dangerous jurors at the til of Oem a product of both. So hy eed by evidence, csespecfegeneaiations tend Pe ee generalizations. For emp aa a a ae prosecution to prove that reds tack on os Po gould supportthe proposition that heactdin pa if Edith’ incitement. The main evidence supe pn ambiguous te-r00m eter (Exhibic) and itt st EN probative value ofthis ast fact would Be evn yn that Freddie was in Fred this, but his credibility was weak If Bey Shipmates asa witness fo support vet 7 feof Freddie’ : yd have weakened the prosecutions ba P Vs habits in this respect wor ‘bout Freddy's habits pect woul arvofthese background generalizations. 2672, The murder weapon was a knife ov by B (not disputed) 3. Bput the knife in his pc to kill PT. (137) aa ce and trial practice toner eae S te Ee to two ential eateries common air ivided knoe ra hey overoo at acknowl they cole laa mificant a3 ‘etches wo sg oe es Then Sa a : 20. Fosters (1001 menage | Seerenien thing | 21. The kia 7 inside pocket of some ae | ly > Parctoed be crag innocent purpose, 25. B purchased he aieowaa before the attack, 20, Consistent with oseof Evidence r ee eS rrlizaions are based upon scientific know tie enero abit. There are those based uy in terms of ther tel erm ions of the law of gravity 10 Prove how l he was pushed ou the aplicato [eiei tee a Sihus band upon wel-