Introduction: Deciding Whether to be an Expert Witness 6. Part 1. What's it like to be an Expert Witness? 9. Introduction. A: Pioneers. 1. Damned Liars and Expert Witnesses Paul Meier. 2. Statisticians, Econometricians, and Adversary Proceedings Franklin M. Fisher. B A Very Brief Introduction to U.S. Law, and to the Role of Expert Witnesses. C Qualifications and Responsibilities of the Expert Witness 33. 1. Epidemiologic Evidence in the Silicone Breast Implant Cases Michael O. Finkelstein and Bruce Levin. 2. Frye v. United States. 3. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. 4. Kumho Tire Co. v.

When as a practicing lawyer I published my ?rst article on statistical evidence in 1966, the editors of the Harvard Law Review told me that a mathematical equa- 1 tion had never before appeared in the review. This hardly seems possible - but if they meant a serious mathematical equation, perhaps they were right. Today all that has changed in legal academia. Whole journals are devoted to scienti?c methods in law or empirical studies of legal institutions. Much of this work involves statistics. Columbia Law School, where I teach, has a professor of law and epidemiology and other law schools have similar “law and” professorships. Many offer courses on statistics (I teach one) or, more broadly, on law and social science. The same is true of practice. Where there are data to parse in a litigation, stat- ticians and other experts using statistical tools now frequently testify. And judges must understand them. In 1993, in its landmark Daubert decision, the Supreme Court commanded federal judges to penetrate scienti?c evidence and ?nd it “re- 2 liable” before allowing it in evidence. It is emblematic of the rise of statistics in the law that the evidence at issue in that much-cited case included a series of epidemiological studies. The Supreme Court’s new requirement made the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scienti?c Evidence, which appeared at about the same time, a best seller. It has several important chapters on statistics.

Statistics for Lawyers presents the science of statistics in action at the cutting edge of legal problems. A series of more than 90 case studies, drawn principally from actual litigation, have been selected to illustrate important areas of the law in which statistics has played a role and to demonstrate a variety of statistical tools. Some case studies raise legal issues that are being intensely debated and lie at the edge of the law. Of particular note are problems involving toxic torts, employment discrimination, stock market manipulation, paternity, tax legislation, and drug testing. The case studies are presented in the form of legal/statistical puzzles to challenge the reader and focus discussion on the legal implications of statistical findings. The techniques range from simple averaging for the estimation of thefts from parking meters to complex logistic regression models for the demonstration of discrimination in the death penalty. Excerpts of data allow the reader to compute statistical results and an appendix contains the authors' calculations.

"Prove It With Figures" displays some of the tools of the social and statistical sciences that have been applied to the proof of facts in the courtroom and to the study of questions of legal importance. It explains how researchers can extract the most valuable and reliable data that can conveniently be made available, and how these efforts sometimes go awry. In the tradition of Zeisel's "Say It with Figures," a standard in the field of social statistics since 1947, it clarifies, in non-technical language, some of the basic problems common to all efforts to discern cause-and-effect relationships. Designed as a textbook for law students who seek an appreciation of the power and limits of empirical methods, the work also is a useful reference for lawyers, policymakers, and members of the public who would like to improve their critical understanding of the statistics presented to them. The many case histories include analyses of the death penalty, jury selection, employment discrimination, mass torts, and DNA profiling. Hans Zeisel was Professor of Law and Sociology Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he pioneered the application of social science to the law. Earlier, he had a distinguished career in public opinion and market research. He has written on a wide variety of topics, ranging from research methodology and history to law enforcement, juries, and Sheakespeare. He was elected Fellow of the American Statistical Assoication and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 1980 he was inducted into the Market Research Hall of Fame. David Kaye is Regents Professor at the Arizona State University, where he teaches evidence and related topics. An author of several law textbooks and treatises, his work also has appeared in journals of

Presents 1993 data of the nationwide survey of the Nation's State & local law enforcement agencies. Includes sections showing data on personnel, expenditures & pay, operations & equipment, computers & information systems, & policies & programs. Hundreds of statistical tables.

When as a practicing lawyer I published my ?rst article on statistical evidence in 1966, the editors of the Harvard Law Review told me that a mathematical equa- 1 tion had never before appeared in the review. This hardly seems possible - but if they meant a serious mathematical equation, perhaps they were right. Today all that has changed in legal academia. Whole journals are devoted to scienti?c methods in law or empirical studies of legal institutions. Much of this work involves statistics. Columbia Law School, where I teach, has a professor of law and epidemiology and other law schools have similar “law and” professorships. Many offer courses on statistics (I teach one) or, more broadly, on law and social science. The same is true of practice. Where there are data to parse in a litigation, stat- ticians and other experts using statistical tools now frequently testify. And judges must understand them. In 1993, in its landmark Daubert decision, the Supreme Court commanded federal judges to penetrate scienti?c evidence and ?nd it “re- 2 liable” before allowing it in evidence. It is emblematic of the rise of statistics in the law that the evidence at issue in that much-cited case included a series of epidemiological studies. The Supreme Court’s new requirement made the Federal Judicial Center’s Reference Manual on Scienti?c Evidence, which appeared at about the same time, a best seller. It has several important chapters on statistics.