|
People
v. Collins, 68 Cal. 2d 319 (1968)
Author: Helper
Facts:
D and his wife were convicted of 2nd degree burglary.
At trial, the prosecutor had a math professor testified that if a
woman with blonde hair and an African American man committed the
crime (who witnesses state committed the burglary), then the
probability of the ?’s committing the crime was
overwhelming. The prosecutor applied the product rule,
which he concluded equaled a one in 12 million chance it was
other ?s than the ones on trial.
Procedural
History: a jury convicted the D’s of 2nd degree
burglary. This court reverses.
Issue:
Whether introducing evidence of mathematical probability was
properly executed by the prosecution therefore allowable in this
proceeding?
Holding:
No
Reasoning:
The testimony greatly influenced the jury against the traditional
means of deciding guilt or innocence, historically done by
weighing the evidence (looking at credibility and probative
value), not stats. Further, the testimony itself lacked
foundation both in evidence and statistical theory primarily b/c
the court found that by taking 6 individual factors of the D’s
looks (factors the prosecution lumped together to get the 1 in 12
million stat) the chances of the D’s being the perpetrators
was minimal. In addition, the court notes the prosecutor
doing the stats is not trained in such mathematics and therefore
his calculations should not be used to influence the jury.
|
