This is an illustration of the way in which statistical concepts are introduced into matters that are not at all statistical. If a statistic is to be invoked, it must be capable of being CALCULATED. If not, it is totally bogus.
I have seen this happen in otherwise technically educated environments (industrial corporation management), where people seriously talk about "Pwin" (probability of winning a contract award) and throw numbers around. They don't recognize they are merely gambling, and are using a purported statistic as an index of their subjective confidence.
The Judge should never have instructed the jury in that manner. He should have asked if they agree with the defendant or not. Let the jury in conference decide what to do with the votes. I should think there would be a strong case in appeal.
This is an illustration of the way in which statistical concepts are introduced into matters that are not at all statistical. If a statistic is to be invoked, it must be capable of being CALCULATED. If not, it is totally bogus.
I have seen this happen in otherwise technically educated environments (industrial corporation management), where people seriously talk about "Pwin" (probability of winning a contract award) and throw numbers around. They don't recognize they are merely gambling, and are using a purported statistic as an index of their subjective confidence.
The Judge should never have instructed the jury in that manner. He should have asked if they agree with the defendant or not. Let the jury in conference decide what to do with the votes. I should think there would be a strong case in appeal.