Crime & Federalism

Follow the Leader

Law students show pluralistic ignorance in action.  The Wikipedia entry for "pluralistic ignorance" is pretty good: 

In social psychology, pluralistic ignorance is a process which involves several members of a group who think that they have different perceptions, beliefs, or attitudes from the rest of the group. While they do not endorse the group norm, the dissenting persons behave like the other group members, because they think that the behaviour of the other group members shows that the opinion of the group is unanimous. In other words, because everyone who disagrees behaves as if he or she agrees, all dissenting members think that the norm is endorsed by every group member but themselves. This in turn reinforces their willingness to conform to the group norm rather than express their disagreement. Because of pluralistic ignorance, people may conform to the perceived consensual opinion of a group, instead of thinking and acting on their own perceptions.

There were probably many students thinking, "Does Volokh really want my phone number?  If so, why?  I probably shouldn't give it.  But no one else would agree, so I should follow the pack.  I don't want to be the lone dissenter." 

How is pluralistic ignorance relevant to the law?  What if you have a juror in a criminal case who doesn't want to vote guilty.  She assumes everyone else does, so she does not share her views.  She follows the herd, voting guilty.

Group think is something to always remain mindful of.  This is especially so for trial lawyers, since what is a jury but a group of people? 

The flip side holds true for prosecutors.  In a closing argument, a prosecutor might want to argue: "How can anyone think there is reasonable doubt after hearing all of this evidence?  Really?  Could anyone think that?"  Maybe one or two jurors do see reasonable doubt.  Will any juror speak out, if she thinks everyone else disagrees with her?  The research shows that it's unlikely.

In criminal law, where one juror can hang the jury, lawyers must be particular attention to group dynamics.

Pot-Stealing Cop Not Charged With Crime

The Bagel Man and White Collar Crime

This is a fascinating article about an honor-based business involving bagels.  Paul F.'s business model is simple.  He brings bagels, he leaves a drop box, customers put money in the drop box.  In general people only cheat him about 11% of the time.  There are some exceptions: 

He is leery of disparaging individual companies or even most industries, for fear it will hurt his business. But he will say that telecom companies have robbed him blind, and another bagel-delivery man found that law firms aren't worth the trouble. He also says he believes that employees further up the corporate ladder cheat more than those down below. He reached this conclusion in part after delivering for years to one company spread out over three floors -- an executive floor on top and two lower floors with sales, service and administrative employees. Maybe, he says, the executives stole bagels out of a sense of entitlement. (Or maybe cheating is how they got to be executives.) His biggest surprise? ''I had idly assumed that in places where security clearance was required for an individual to have a job, the employees would be more honest than elsewhere. That hasn't turned out to be true.''

Check it out. (Via Freakonomics.)

Fraud and the Family Medical Leave Act

What employee doesn't realize that if you call in sick, you'd better not let your boss see you at the bar later in the day.  Obvious stuff, right?  Yet "employee-rights" lawyers are throwing a fit because employers are "spying" on employees who fraudulently take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act.  Shameless.  (Via Kerr).

Texas Police Officer Murders Dog

Another sad story of police abuse.

Rhetoric

I shall let the video speak for itself:

[Hilarious video was removed from YouTube. Investigating...]

Associated Press Still Doesn't Care About the Truth

It's a logical fallacy to argue a false inference.  It's also poor form (unless you're a criminal defense lawyer, in which case it may be ethically required).  You argue a false inference when you give readers just enough facts that they will draw a false inference. 

That's exactly what the Associated Press did to Texas lawyer Matthew C. Ryan. 

An Austin, Texas, attorney who has the same name as a defendant in an Internet libel suit that has drawn national media attention has asked an attorney for the plaintiffs to amend the complaint in that suit to clarify who the defendant actually is.

...

Ryan the lawyer says his troubles began Aug. 6, when a reporter with the Associated Press called to ask whether he was the Matthew C. Ryan named as a defendant in the Doe I suit. Ryan says he told the reporter he is not the defendant, but he is unhappy that the AP wrote an Aug. 6 story he believes did not do enough to clarify that he is not the defendant.

Following publication of the AP story, Ryan the lawyer began receiving e-mails from people upset about the conduct alleged in the complaint and telephone calls from reporters interested in the suit. It got so bad that Ryan the lawyer hired Howard Falkenberg, a public relations consultant in Austin, to help Ryan try to clarify that he is not the defendant in Doe I.

Many of my friends do not understand why I hate the media so.  Ryan's story illustrates why. 

The Associated Press made an innocent person's life very difficult.  Even worse, they didn't inform the public of the truth.  Isn't truthfully reporting the news a reporter's job? 

If there are two Matthew C. Ryan's, and the AP knows that one of those Mr. Ryan's is innocent, shouldn't they inform their readers?  It's a simple issue of narrowing the suspects.  I'm a reader.  I want to know the truth.  I want to know who "Mr. Ryan is."  Eliminating Ryan the lawyer brings me closer to the truth.

Basic logic, basic ethics, and basic human decency required the Associated Press to report the truth. Ryan the lawyer had nothing to do with the AutoAdmit lawsuit.  Yet this material fact was omitted.

With today's media, basic facts and basic logic are too much to expect.  Burn, baby, burn.

Prosecutors Talk Shop on DUI Enforcement

Check out this video.  Ask yourselves: Do these folks sound like judges?  After watching this video, if you were a defendant, would you feel that these judges would be fair and impartial?  Would they protect your rights?

The video features this panel of judges:

• Robert Pirraglia of the Rhode Island District Court;
• G. Michael Witte of the Dearborn Superior Court;
• Peggy D. David of the Greene County Judicial Facility;
• Norman Kent Lawrence of the State Court of Clarke County.

(Via Simple Justice.)

Let me note: I think DUI laws are too lenient.  People run terrified of sex offenders, when it's so unlikely that a sex offender will ever harm them.  Yet many do not think twice about drunk drivers.  Much of that has to do with empathy.

Few would say of a rapist, "There, but for the Grace of God, go I."  Yet people always say that of drunk drivers.  Driving drunk is something many (maybe even most) people have done.

Drunk driving and lenient societal attitudes are  a serious menace to society.  I have almost been hit twice by drunk drivers. There are so many drunk drivers near my apartment that I cannot take my dog for a walk past 11 p.m.  When visiting friends, we know to remain off the highways after midnight. 

Attitudes must change.  Drunk driving is a serious crime deserving serious time.

That said, I want judges to act as judges, not prosecutors.  I do not think any of those judges in that panel would be fair.  Because many judges have taken on the role of prosecutor, there is now a DUI Exception to the Constitution.  Check out Lawrence Taylor's excellent summary here.

I want legislators to their jobs: Increase penalties for DUI offenders. I certainly want prosecutors to do their jobs: Prosecute the guilty.  But I also want judges to do their jobs: Uphold the Constitution. 

The judges in that video, with the blessing of the National Center for State Courts, have forgotten their proper role in our system of separated powers.  And that is cause for more outrage than the number of drunks on the road.

Did District Attorney Jim Bob Miller File A Frivolous Criminal Complaint Against Blogger?

District Attorney Jim Bob Miller of McAlester, Oklahoma has filed a criminal complaint against his long-time critic, Harold King.  King operates a web forum where members of the public may post comments.  Some of the comments were critical of Attorney Miller.  Attorney Miller is thus seeking to have King prosecuted:

Documents obtained by the McAlester News-Capital show that District 18 District Attorney Jim Bob Miller has filed an offense report with the McAlester Police Department against Harold King.

King operates www.mccooler.net, the McAlester Watercooler, where comments critical of Miller have been posted.

An offense report filed with police lists Miller as the person who reported the complaint to McAlester police and lists the phone number of the district attorney’s office.

The report lists King as the suspect.

The offense description in the report cites a state statute and follows with a description of the offense as a communication “to any person of a false rumor or report of a slanderous nature, slander.”

A narrative report states “Victim said the suspect is criminally libel for his comments and other people’s comments on the ‘mccooler.’”

Prosecuting someone for criminal libel is hard enough.  Oklahoma does have a criminal libel statute, so in theory, it is possible to prosecute the libellers.  Incidentally, this is not the first time someone from McCooler has faced prosecution under Oklahoma's criminal libel laws.

Here, Attorney Miller wants to Mr. King for other people's comments.  That's quite a stretch.  It seems frivolous on its face. 

It seems that Attorney Miller's real goal is to freeze his critics.  Will it work?  King says he won't comply with the subpoena's demands:

Police detectives seeking the identities of bloggers who criticized McAlester officials on an online message board delivered a subpoena to the site's operator, who says he won't cooperate with investigators.

Good for him.  By the way, comments are open.  You are welcome to anonymously express your views on Attorney Miller.  (Hat tip: Kipesquire.)

Psychiatrists Cause Teen Drug Use

It used to be that the easiest way to decrease the supply of drug was to legalize them.  That trend is changing:

A growing number of teenagers say it's easier to illegally obtain prescription drugs than to buy beer, according to a survey published today.

The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University asked: "Which is easiest for someone your age to buy: cigarettes, beer, marijuana, or prescription drugs such as OxyContin, Percocet, Vicodin or Ritalin, without a prescription?" Nineteen percent of teenagers found it easier to purchase prescription drugs than cigarettes, beer or marijuana, compared with 13 percent a year ago. A quarter of the teens said it is easiest to buy marijuana, with 43 percent of 17-year-olds saying they could buy the drug in less than an hour.

There is no conundrum.  There's a reason prescription drugs pills are easy to obtain: They are everywhere.

The mental health field has always recognized biological imbalances that lead to serious mental problems.  Bipolar disease and schizophrenia have been treated with medication for years.  A recent trend, however, classifies every woe as a disease.  And how do we treat diseases? With drugs, of course.

Your boyfriend broke up with you?  Learning to deal with the tragedies of life is not part of growing up.  You suffer from depression.  Pop a Prozac. 

Your teenage boy is angsty and aggressive?  It couldn't be that this is a normal part of aging.  He suffers from attention deficient disorder.  Give that young man a Ritalin!

Your daughter has trouble making new friends?  She is not shy or reserved.  She doesn't need to simply get out more.  Give her a Xanax!

And the adults are the worst of them all.  A Beverly Hills housewife's drug supply would make Tony Montana blush.

Pills, pills, pills.  Everywhere there are pills.

Pharmaceutical companies are making billions, and psychiatrists are willing accomplishes to this fraud on the American people.

How do we make it harder for children to obtain prescription drugs?  Simple. We tell modern psychiatry to stop classifying every unpleasant part of the human experience as a disease.

Vocabulary Game

This is a pretty good way to spend a coffee break.

Denver Police Star in Police Brutality Video: Are Judges Watching?

If you counsel criminal clients for even a week, you will hear two things repeatedly.  One is that, "The cops stole my drug money."  Two is that, "The cops beat me up.  I never resisted arrest."

It's easy to brush off these claims at first.  Clients say all sorts of implausible things.  But when you've heard the same descriptions over and over, you start to believe that there might be some truth to what you're hearing.

Unfortunately, judges do not have this perspective.  In a resisting arrest case, they will always side with the police.  Always.  Judges simply cannot comprehend that police would beat a person up for no reason, lie about it, and then charge the guy with resisting arrest.  Yet videos are appearing all over YouTube showing police behaving badly.  The most recent video (via) comes from Denver:

The Denver District Attorney's office has dropped its case against a man who was facing three years in prison for assault, after 9Wants to Know obtained and showed prosecutors a videotape of the man's arrest.

On the video, which was shot outside Coors Field on the home opener of the Colorado Rockies game on April 4, undercover Denver Police detectives hit, kick and choke John Heaney.

"They both unloaded on me and I started seeing stars and the whole thing was just bam, bam, bam after that," said Heaney. "Someone had a chokehold and they were all on top of me and I couldn't breathe and I thought I was going to die."

After three detectives had Heaney facedown on the ground with his hands behind his back, the video shows undercover Det. Michael Cordova pull Heaney's hair, lift up his head and slam it into the ground, breaking two of his teeth on the cement.

Heaney was charged with second-degree assault on a police officer and criminal mischief after one of the officer's sunglasses were broken during the arrest. The officers claim Heaney rode his bicycle through a red light at 20th and Blake Streets and then punched Cordova in the nose.

You can watch the video below:

Are judges watching these videos?  How many more videos will they need to see?

More Genius Insights from Speaking of Crime

If you're not sold on Speaking of Crime yet, then I don't know what to do with you.  Here is another genius example from the authors:

Chapter 3:  "Consensual" Searches

It is worth noting that in California (and, not doubt, many other states) it is a crime not to show your driver's license on demand by an officer. Cal. Pen. Vehicle section 12951(b).  As we suggest in the book, officers typically demand to see a driver's license by using the phrase "May I see your license?"  To refuse this ostensible request is a crime.  Yet how are suspects supposed to know that if an officer says "May I look in your trunk," they actually have a constitutional right to refuse?    

Is "may" a request or a demand?  Why is it sometimes a request, and other times a demand?  What principled basis is there for the disparate treatment of "may"?

Eighth Circuit Second Amendment Opinion on Machine Guns

Today the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a Second Amendment opinion.  United States v. Fincher, No. 07-2514 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008).  Here is the official case summary:

District court's determination that defendant's militia group, the Washington County Militia, was not affiliated with the state militia and therefore not subject to the protections of Second Amendment was well supported by the record; since machine guns are not weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Heller does not protect defendant's possession of machine guns [].

You may download the opinion here.

Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice

This book sounds fascinating.  (You may read excerpts of the book using Google Book Search.)  I ordered my copy today.  This book review notes that Speaking of Crime makes a genius observation:

The courts appear to accept compliance to indirect speech (e.g., "Have you a way of opening the trunk from there?") as consensual agreement [to a search]. Yet when it comes to civilians invoking the right to the presence of a lawyer through their use of indirect language (e.g., "Maybe I should think of contacting an attorney . . ."), the courts will typically not accept this as an equivocal request for an attorney to be present nor deem it a call for the cessation of further questioning.

This is a fantastic point.  Is it intellectually consistent for courts to allow ambigious language to communite consent to a search, but not to communicate invocation of the right to counsel?  If so, why?

Criminal Profiling is Junk Science

The latest issue of Skeptic has a fascinating critique of criminal profiling entitled, "Criminal Profiling:     Granfalloons and Gobbledygook."  Unfortunately, it's available to subscribers only.  Fortunately, the article's author, psychologist Paul Taylor, has another article on criminal profiling available online:

Criminal profiling (CP) is the practice of using crime scene evidence to infer the personality, behavioural, and demographic characteristics of the offender who committed the crime.  The increased usage of CP by police investigators around the world over the past three decades suggests that police officers generally believe that CP works.  Given the lack of compelling scientific evidence that CP is a reliable, valid, or useful psychologically-based investigative technique, it seems prudent to ask officers about their perceptions of CP and its application.

The article is available here.

Eighth Circuit Upholds Warrantless Destruction of Property

The Eighth Circuit Court of appeals handed down a shocking opinion today.  In United States v. Santana-Aguirre, No. 07-3706 (8th Cir. August 12, 2008) (opinion), a 2-1 panel held that when you consent to a search, you also consent to the destruction of your property.

In Santana-Aguirre, a police officer obtained consent to search a passenger's bag.

While searching the bag, the officer saw two larges candles.  The candles appeared to be low quality.  Without obtaining the passenger's consent, and without obtaining a warrant, the officer destroyed the candles with his knife.

Under earlier Eighth Circuit precedent, the candle's destruction may have been constitutional.  In United States v. Alverez, 235 F.3d 1086 (8th Cir. 2000), a three-judge panel held that, under automobile exception to the Fourth Amendment, destruction of spare tire was reasonable when police had probable cause to believe that that tire contained drugs. 

While the Alverez rule is bad enough, the application of the rule is doubly-bad here.  The split panel held that these facts constituted probable cause:

The candles looked standard and inexpensive, but stood out to him because it would be easier for someone to buy identical candles at his destination rather than transport them. [The officer] then noticed that 'the layering of the candle was inconsistent'—'[t]here were bumps separating the different layers of the candle.' The original packaging had been removed, torn, and then re-taped. There were also holes around the candlewick.

Slip op. at 3.  In other words, these were your typical crappy candles that poor people buy.  There is nothing suspicious about a poorly-constructed candle.  Go into a Dollar General store, and you'll see that every large candle is poorly constructed.  A candle looking like it should look should not create probable cause.

That said, even being in the Alverez framework is disturbing.  We should question Alverez's premise.

The Fourth Amendment requires searches to be reasonable. Is it really reasonable to allow police to destroy your property without first obtaining a warrant or your consent?  In Alverez and Santana-Aguirre, no neutral and detached magistrate issued a warrant.  Rather, officers made an on-the-spot determination that the property contained contraband. 

In a free society, should our property be valued so little that an officer who believes that it might contain drugs may destroy it?

What if the property had been a lap top, a digital camera, or a set of family pictures?  It's easy not to care about Santana-Aguirre.  Who cares about a cheap candle? 

An appellate court must not forget that today's candle is tomorrow's lap top: Police will use Santana-Aguirre to justify the destruction of valuable property.

I have a controversial idea.  Before officers may destroy property, they must get consent or a warrant.  Alverez was wrongly decided in 2000.  Santana-Aguirre was wrongly decided today.

Sexual Harassment is a Crime

In Iowa (via Gowder) it is:

A University of Iowa professor was arrested Friday afternoon for allegedly asking female students to let him fondle their breasts in return for an "A" grade for the class.

Arthur Herbert Miller, 66, of 1700 N. Dubuque Road, faces four counts of bribery, a class C felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. He was admitted to the Johnson County Jail at 3:56 p.m. Friday and released early Saturday.

Under Iowa law (as is the law in most states), a public employee who agrees to perform a discretionary act in exchange a thing of value is guilty of bribery.  A sexual favor is a thing of value.  See McDonald v. Alabama, 329 So. 2d 583, 587-88 (1975) (affirming conviction of judge who gave lenient sentence in exchange for sex); (more sources).

If Professor Miller did indeed agree to a grades-for-sex scheme, then he's likely guilty of bribery.

Why did he get charged with bribery?  Simple.  Prosecutors wanted to charge him with something.

They couldn't charge him with sexual battery, since the female students either rebuffed his offer or agreed to expose themselves.  He didn't force himself on any of them. 

Consent is a tricky issue in these cases.  If Professor Miller had said that he would lower a student's grade unless she let him fondle her breast, he would be guilty of sexual battery.  The contact in that situation would not be consensual.  Threatening to withhold something from someone that she is legally entitled to is different from promising to give someone something that she is not entitled to.

In this case, Professor Miller did not say, "I'm going to flunk you unless you show me your breasts."  Rather, he allegedly said, "I'll make it worth your while to show me the goods."  He did not threaten to take something away.  He promised to give something extra. 

While a bribery case can be made against Professor Miller, should he really be prosecuted in the criminal justice system for engaging in what would otherwise be sexual harassment? 

Sexual harassment is indeed a serious affront to human dignity.  Should it be criminal conduct, though?  Or should we leave it to the civil justice system to deal with Professor Miller's alleged misconduct?

Police Officer's Accusations v. Reality

I'm sure many of us saw this shocking video of New York police officer Patrick Pogan knocking a bicyclist off of the cyclist's bike.  If not, be sure to check it out:

After doing so, please read the sworn criminal statement that Officer Pogan filed.  Notice any differences? 

UPDATE: Greenfeld was way ahead of me on this.

Logical Lawyers

The ABA Journal reports (via Ted Frank) that lawyers, suffer from cognitive bias:^[1]

The group [of lawyers] also suffered from a problem known as “anchoring,” which is the tendency to be influenced by suggestion when estimating an unknown number such as the value of pain and suffering.

A hypothetical described a case involving a school teacher who lost his arm in an accident. Half were told that the plaintiff offered to settle for $100,000, and the other half learned of a $10 million settlement offer.

A majority of the $100,000 group said a judge would assess the value of pain and suffering between $500,000 and $2 million. But a majority of the $10 million group went higher, saying the value would be between $1 million and $5 million.

The lesson for lawyers, said U.S. District Judge Andrew Wistrich of Los Angeles, is “the more you ask for, the more you get.”

We could be flip by saying that, “Lawyers are people, too.” 

Should we tolerate this?  Should people who are paid to analyze facts and law allow cognitive bias to rule?

While the Journal's report might be upsetting, it should not be surprising. It’s been shown that doctors suffer from cognitive bias.  What your doctor is too biased to see what might kill you.

Cognitive bias is not an incurable medical condition.  Like other biases, it’s something that we can often escape.  Our minds pull us in the wrong direction; but knowing right from wrong, we can steer ourselves to the right lane.

Yet law schools do not offer any remedies.

Although law professors will proudly proclaim that they teach students to “think like lawyers,” formal critical thinking is not taught.  What are the major formal and informal logical fallacies?  What is a categorical syllogism?  How do you determine if someone is getting something right because of some specialized knowledge, or just due to chance alone?

If “thinking like a lawyer” means “thinking critically,” how can law professors credibly claim to teach students to think like lawyers when they do not teach basic logic?

Things like formal and informal fallacies are basic.  Yet none of that stuff is taught in law schools.  The exciting psychological research dealing with stuff like anchoring?  Forget about it.

The message to lawyers and would-be lawyers is pretty simple: If you want to be better than your peers, learn to think.

^[1] In the comments section, I'll show that we'd suffer from cognitive bias if we ignored the flaws in the Journal's report.

How Not to Persuade

I just read a brief that went something like this: Hey, judge, there was this case about the Second Amendment.  Heller, I think it was called.  Anyway, my client is charged under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(9).  That law is unconstitutional under Heller, I think.  I'm not certain, because the Supreme Court said that Section 922 might not be unconstitutional.  Anyway, my client clearly has a Second Amendment right to own a gun.  This is so under strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or rational basis review.  The end.

You think I'm kidding?  Read this brief and decide for yourself whether the paragraph above is a caricature.

In any event, that brief is a good example of a throw-away brief.  Oftentimes in criminal cases you spot an issue that there is no way in Hell you will win.  You must file a motion anyway, to preserve the record for appeal.  (You know will lose on appeal, too, yet you'll still file something.  Sisyphus's rock and all that.)

Also, if you don't file a motion in support of a colorable issue, it will look bad when your client later claims ineffective assistance of counsel.  Hence, you bang a brief out in under an hour.

But when a party is charged under a law that is potentially unconstitutional under a new Supreme Court decision, you do not file a throw-away brief.  You take your time.  If you don't have time, you send out a cry for help on the NACDL list-serve.  You call the Federal Defender's office.  I guarantee you that there is a proper Heller brief out there.  So even if you don't have time to write it yourself, find the f-----g thing on the Internet and file something proper.

Ex-Marines Attacked in Coney Island

If this had been a white-on-black offense, you could bet the mainstream media would have been all over this:

A wolf pack of at least 30 thugs viciously attacked two hero ex-Marines in Brooklyn after they rescued a teenage girl who was being assaulted, police and witnesses said yesterday.

And when the brother of one of the former servicemen tried to come to his rescue during the July 25 melee in Coney Island, he was beaten into a coma.

...

The two former Marines, meanwhile, insist that the violence had racial overtones, although the assault has not been labeled a bias crime.

Bukler said, "Those in the crowd were yelling, 'Hey, white boys, you're in the 'hood now!' We were yelling back, 'We don't care - we live here!'

Why is it that when blacks brutalize whites and yell racial epithets at whites, something other than racism must be at play?  Where are the op-eds decrying racism?  Where, in short, is the Duke-Lacrosse-like outrage?

Video Justice

Hell, yes.

Let this be a reminder to would-be drunk drivers.  Privacy is dead.  Cameras are everywhere.  People are watching.  Do the right thing.

The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives

A law firm recently hired an all-star associate.  She is a terrific writer, a soldier researcher, and a great listener.  She has screwed up two consecutive assignments in a row.  What are the odds that someone who is supposed to be so good would perform so poorly?

You just hired a dullard to do yeoman's work around the office.  He found two nuggets that lead to substantial trial verdicts.  Is this guy an undercover genius, or what?

You're a trial lawyer who wins 80% of your cases.  You've dropped the last three in a row.  Is this a negative trend?  Have you lost your magic?  Or is something else at work?

If you were like me, you'd likely not know what to do with the above problems - other than rely on "gut instinct" or some other mechanism that substitutes for actual analysis.   Statistics is something I was woefully ignorant of.  I never saw much value in it.  But statistics should play a role in everyday life. 

Enter The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives.  In The Drunkard's Walk, Leonard Mlodinow explains the origins of and modern state of statistics and probability:

In this irreverent and illuminating book, acclaimed writer and scientist Leonard Mlodinow shows us how randomness, change, and probability reveal a tremendous amount about our daily lives, and how we misunderstand the significance of everything from a casual conversation to a major financial setback. As a result, successes and failures in life are often attributed to clear and obvious cases, when in actuality they are more profoundly influenced by chance.

Why care?  For one, statistics is practical.  Experts are always throwing around statistics in the courtroom; these numbers prove something.  Or so they say.  Are they lying? 

For another, it frees us from superstition.  Yes, I said superstition. 

We often cause-and-effect relationships that do not exist.  Very often what we are observing are simply a clustering of random events.  If you flip a fair coin, and the coin lands on heads three consecutive times, does that make it more likely that the next flip of the coin will be heads?  Is there some unknown force causing heads to keep coming up? 

Believing that a slot machine is "due," or that a dealer is "hot," or that you're having a strand of "bad luck" is superstition.  It's silly.  It's the belief in something false.  Why not rid your brain of these silly superstitions?  The Drunkard's Walk will help you.  Check it out.

Incidentally, Leonard Mlodinow gave a talk at Google.  You may watch it below:

Mayor Cheye Cavlo Describes Ordeal in E-mail to Friends

Mayor Cheye Calvo, the man whose dogs were murdered by Prince George County Police, sent an e-mail to friends, describing the event.  The e-mail's text is available here.

Ted Frank on Prosecutorial Indiscretion

Ted Frank has an interesting article entitled, "Prosecutors Gone Wild."  Check it out.

Salvatore Rivieri's History of Violence

Salvatore Rivieri is a police officer with the Baltimore Police Department.  He was put on paid administrative leave in February, after he was caught on video assaulting a 14-year old. 

Maybe that 14-year old was a disrespectful punk who deserved to be taught to show some respect?  That's a pretty revolting worldview, but it's one many people like Justice Antonin Scalia have.  Fair enough; let's move on.

What did the artist in this video do to deserve Officer Rivieri's wrath?

How many other people have Officer Rivieri abused throughout his 17-year career?  How many of those outbursts were not caught on video? 

Prince George County Police Have a History of Violence

In Hudson v. Michigan, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote: "[M]odern police forces are staffed with professionals; it is not credible to assert that internal discipline, which can limit successful careers, will not have a deterrent effect."

Prince George County police officers are under scrutiny for killing Berwyn Heights Mayor Cheye Calvo's two dogs.  Unfortunately for Prince George County residents, their police officers enjoy killing animals.  Here is a similar story from November, 2007:

An Accokeek couple is demanding an apology after Prince George's County Sheriff's Deputies burst into their home and killed their dog - all because deputies went to the wrong address.

Pam and Frank Myers were tucked away in their home Friday night watching a movie when the warrant squad pounced....

"And I said, 'You just shot my dog," said Pam Myers, through tears. "I just wanted to go out and hold her a bit. They wouldn't even let me go out."

The couple's five-year-old boxer Pearl was killed. The deputy says he feared for his life. They say the dog would bark but was no danger to the deputies.

Of course, "The Sheriff's Department says it's investigating what went wrong." Yet no one has been punished or suffered any career consequences for killing a helpless dog for sport. 

Was Justice Scalia lying in Hudson?  Was he mistaken?  What am I missing? 

Prince George County Killers Attempt to Re-Write History

Police raided a Maryland mayor's home without a proper warrant, and shot one his black labs as the terrified dog ran away from police.  As it turns out, the police raided Mayor Calvo's house for no reason: 

Police say the couple appeared to be innocent victims of a scheme by two men to smuggle millions of dollars worth of marijuana by having it delivered to about a half-dozen unsuspecting recipients.

The two men under arrest include a FedEx deliveryman; investigators said the deliveryman would drop off a package outside a home, and the other man would come by a short time later and pick it up.

The police, unsurprisingly, are unapologetic: 

Prince George's County Police Chief Melvin High said Wednesday that Calvo and his family were "most likely ... innocent victims," but he would not rule out their involvement, and he defended the way the raid was conducted. He and other officials did not apologize for killing the dogs, saying the officers felt threatened.

Threatened by a black lab that was running away from them?  These police officers are cowards in every sense of the word.

Incidentally, police officers raided Calvo's home without first knocking and announcing their presence.  At first, they claimed that they had a no-knock warrant.  Under the law, police may not break down your door until their first "knock and announce" their presence.  When police have a "no-knock warrant," they are not required to knock and announce.  They can bust your door down with a battering ram.

It was later revealed that Prince George County police officers lied.  They did not have a no-knock warrant.  So what did the police do next?  They tried to create exigent circumstances after-the-fact:

But officials insisted they acted within the law, saying the operation was compromised when Calvo's mother-in-law saw officers approaching the house and screamed. That could have given someone time to grab a gun or destroy evidence, authorities said.

Funny how that works, isn't it?  First they said, "We raided Mayor Calvo's home because we had a no-knock warrant."  When that is revealed as a lie, they said, "We raided Mayor Calvo's home because his mother-in-law screamed."

Thirty-Second Memory Test

Please read and memorize the following words: bed, rest, awake, tired, dream, wake, snooze, blanket, doze, slumber, snore, nap, peace, yawn, drowsy.  Look away from the screen and write down the words you remembered.

Once you've done so, please highlight this paragraph as if you were highlighting a paragraph in Word (double-click and drag your mouse down): If you're like most people, you remember the word sleep.  Guess what: Sleep was not one of the words listed.

That's the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) effect (described here), and it's a powerful way of illustrating that we can all be tricked into creating false memories.