Noah Feldman: It just got easier to be convicted of a crime

posted in: Adventure | 0

Can the prosecution call a cop as an expert witness to testify in a drug-trafficking case that most drug couriers — not necessarily the one on trial — know they are carrying drugs? The Supreme Court has said yes, despite a clear federal rule that says an expert can’t testify as to the defendant’s state of mind. The decision is wrong, because it invites the jury to conflate abstract statistical probabilities with the specific circumstances of the individual case.

Delilah Diaz, a U.S. citizen, was stopped in the car she was driving across the border into the U.S. from Mexico. The customs officer tried to roll down the rear window and discovered, hidden inside the rear door panel, 54 pounds of methamphetamine worth roughly $370,000. These were the facts of the case, and they were undisputed.

What was disputed in Diaz v. United States was whether Diaz knew the meth was there. (She claimed she didn’t.) To show Diaz knowingly smuggled the drugs, the government introduced an expert witness, a Homeland Security investigation agent. The agent testified that Mexican cartels “generally do not entrust large quantities of drugs to people who are unaware they are transporting them” because they don’t want to take that kind of a risk with lots of money on the line.

Federal rule of evidence 704(b) says that “in a criminal case, an expert witness must not state an opinion about whether the defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense.” The lower federal courts held that the agent’s testimony didn’t violate the rule because he wasn’t testifying about whether Diaz herself knew the drugs were there, but only about the general practice of cartels. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision written by Justice Clarence Thomas, agreed.

The rule itself has a quirky history: Congress enacted it after a jury acquitted John Hinckley of the attempted murder of Ronald Reagan on grounds of insanity. Apparently, the worry was that juries would take experts too seriously when they said a defendant lacked the requisite mental capacity to commit a crime.

Interestingly, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former federal trial judge, joined Thomas’s opinion. She wrote a separate concurrence to explain that it is important for defendants to be able to introduce expert testimony showing that a person with, say, a given mental condition is generally unable to form the mental state needed to commit a given crime. This approach suggests sensitivity to the anti-defendant impulses of the post-Hinckley rule.

Justice Neil Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. He framed his dissent as an exercise in textualism, the theory of statutory interpretation that says the words must be read to say what they mean. According to Gorsuch’s reading of the rule, the agent’s testimony was precisely “about” the defendant’s state of mind.

Readers of this column know I don’t have much patience with textualism. The majority opinion also had a plausible textual reading of the statute, namely that the testimony was about most drug couriers, not the defendant.

The better basis for the dissent is that allowing expert testimony about what most couriers know encourages the jury to infer on a probabilistic, statistical basis that the defendant is guilty — because after all, most couriers are. That sort of statistical generality is not an appropriate basis for proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

The whole point of requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt is to demand the government establish that this particular defendant has committed the particular acts charged with the particular state of mind alleged.

Gorsuch’s dissent is at its best when he explains why the majority’s opinion is flawed: “Prosecutors can now put an expert on the stand — someone who apparently has the convenient ability to read minds — and let him hold forth on what ‘most’ people like the defendant think when they commit a legally proscribed act. Then, the government need do no more than urge the jury to find that the defendant is like ‘most’ people and convict.” Notably, Gorsuch was willing to discuss the consequences of the majority’s rule — a welcome deviation from a textualism that is supposed to care only about words, not purposes or effects.

It’s not like the majority’s rule is necessary to get convictions. In this case, there were other, specific, ways to try and prove Diaz’s guilt. For example, she claimed to be driving the car of a boyfriend whom she had met only a couple of times and whose phone number she did not have. Juries are well-suited to making determinations of credibility on assertions like these.

In life, it’s often appropriate and even necessary to rely on statistical generalizations, especially under conditions of uncertainty, where we don’t have all the facts. Civil cases fall into this category: juries are often asked to determine what is more likely than not to have happened.

Criminal cases are different. The law carves them out as a special domain of specific knowledge. We need that protection. Otherwise, juries might observe that most people arrested for a crime are guilty of something and conclude that they should convict any defendant before them.

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A professor of law at Harvard University, he is author, most recently, of “To Be a Jew Today: A New Guide to God, Israel, and the Jewish People.”

Related Articles

Opinion |


Trudy Rubin: Ukraine’s head of military intelligence is behind Kyiv’s biggest victories this year. He sees no point in peace talks

Opinion |


Noah Feldman: Supreme Court’s right faces a free-speech problem

Opinion |


David French: Clarence Thomas and John Roberts are at a fork in the road

Opinion |


Jamelle Bouie: The lazy authoritarianism of Donald Trump

Opinion |


Commentary: As AI is embraced, what happens to the artists whose work was stolen to build it?

Abbie E. Goldberg: As conservatives target same-sex marriage, its power is only getting clearer

posted in: News | 0

It’s been two years since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs case that overturned the federal right to an abortion, and the troubling concurring opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas in which he expressed a desire to “revisit” other landmark precedents, including the freedom to marry for same-sex couples, codified nationally by the Obergefell Supreme Court decision, nine years ago Wednesday

Since that ruling, the LGBTQ+ and allied community has done much to protect the fundamental freedom to marry — passing the Respect for Marriage Act in Congress in 2022; sharing their stories this year to mark the 20th anniversary of the first state legalization of same-sex marriages, in Massachusetts; and in California, Hawaii and Colorado launching ballot campaigns to repeal dormant but still-on-the-books anti-marriage constitutional amendments.

This winter, I worked with a team at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law to survey nearly 500 married LGBTQ+ people about their relationships. Respondents included couples from every state in the country; on average they had been together for more than 16 years and married for more than nine years. Sixty-two percent married after the court’s 2015 Obergefell marriage decision, although their relationships started before before that. More than 30% of the couples had children and another 25% wanted children in the future.

One finding that jumped out of the data: Almost 80% of married same-sex couples surveyed said they were “very” or “somewhat” concerned about the Obergefell decision being overturned. Around a quarter of them said they’d taken action to shore up their family’s legal protections — pursuing a second-parent adoption, having children earlier than originally planned or marrying on a faster-than-expected timeline — because of concerns about marriage equality being challenged. One respondent said, “We got engaged the day that the Supreme Court ruled on the Dobbs decision and got married one week after.”

As we examined the survey results, it became clearer than ever why LGBTQ+ families and same-sex couples are fighting so hard to protect marriage access — and the answer is really quite simple: The freedom to marry has been transformative for them. It has not only granted them hundreds of additional rights and responsibilities, but it has also strengthened their bonds in very real ways.

Nearly every person surveyed (93%) said they married for love; three-quarters added that they married for companionship or legal protections. When asked how marriage changed their lives, 83% reported positive changes in their sense of safety and security, and 75% reported positive changes in terms of life satisfaction. “I feel secure in our relationship in a way I never thought would be possible,” one participant told us. “I love being married.”

I’ve been studying LGBTQ+ people and families for my entire career — and even still, many of the findings of the survey touched and inspired me.

Individual respondents talked about the ways that marriage expanded their personal family networks, granting them (for better and worse!) an additional set of parents, siblings and loved ones. More than 40% relied on each other’s families of origin in times of financial or healthcare crisis, or to help out with childcare. Some told of in-laws who provided financial assistance to buy a house, or cared for them while they were undergoing chemotherapy for cancer.

And then there was the effect on children. Many respondents explained that their marriage has provided security for their children, and dignity and respect for the family unit. Marriage enabled parents to share child-rearing responsibilities — to take turns being the primary earner (and carrying the health insurance), and spending more time at home with the kids.

The big takeaway from this study is that same-sex couples have a lot on the line when it comes to the freedom to marry — and they’re going to do everything possible to ensure that future political shifts don’t interfere with their lives. As couples across the country continue to speak out, share their stories — and in California, head to the ballot box in November to protect their hard-earned freedoms — it’s clear to me that it’s because they believe wholeheartedly, and with good reason, that their lives depend on it.

Abbie E. Goldberg is an affiliated scholar at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and a psychology professor at Clark University, where she directs the women’s and gender studies. She wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

Related Articles

Opinion |


Trudy Rubin: Ukraine’s head of military intelligence is behind Kyiv’s biggest victories this year. He sees no point in peace talks

Opinion |


Noah Feldman: Supreme Court’s right faces a free-speech problem

Opinion |


David French: Clarence Thomas and John Roberts are at a fork in the road

Opinion |


Jamelle Bouie: The lazy authoritarianism of Donald Trump

Opinion |


Commentary: As AI is embraced, what happens to the artists whose work was stolen to build it?

Jose Miranda’s bounce-back season continues in Twins’ rout of Diamondbacks

posted in: News | 0

PHOENIX — It was early June, Royce Lewis’s return was imminent and that meant a roster crunch was coming.

The Twins could have chosen to go in a number of different directions, but it quickly became clear there was one direction that they couldn’t go, even if it made the most logical sense positionally.

Jose Miranda had been manning third base in Lewis’s absence. But with the way he was hitting, there was no way the Twins were sending him back to Triple-A.

Miranda has more than rewarded the Twins’ faith. After last season was essentially lost due to a shoulder injury, the infielder has come back even better. And on Wednesday, that meant clearing the bases with a big double in the second inning to give the Twins a lead in their eventual 8-3 win over the Arizona Diamondbacks at Chase Field.

It also included another double and a single as part of a three-hit day. Even the one out he made was good contact, lined at 98.9 miles per hour to right field. He was intentionally walked in his last plate appearance.

Twins manager Rocco Baldelli said before the game that part of the reason Lewis has been DHing as much as he has been is to get Miranda in the field. A mixture of third base, a bit of first and at-bats at DH have helped the Twins keep Miranda in the lineup, and he’s been making the most of the opportunity that’s been given to him.

The Twins got contributions from up and down the lineup.

Byron Buxton hit a sacrifice fly to push the Twins’ lead to four runs at the time. Trevor Larnach’s second double of the game brought home Willi Castro in the fourth inning, and Carlos Correa, who, like Miranda had three hits in the game, would later trade places with Larnach, doubling him in. Castro hit a blast in the fifth inning of the rout to cap the Twins’ scoring.

All that in support of rookie Simeon Woods Richardson, who gave up three earned runs in his 5 1/3 innings. Woods Richardson left in the sixth inning with a pair of runners on, both of whom scored, but he had plenty of help from his offense from the second inning on.

U.S. determines Olympics qualifiers in trampoline

posted in: Adventure | 0

Jessica Stevens and Alliaksei Shostak were declared USA Gymnastics’ Olympic qualifiers in the trampoline event on Wednesday evening based of their scores over the first two days of elite competition at the Minneapolis Convention Center.

The winners of the U.S. championships were determined in Wednesday night’s finals, with Ruben Padilla winning the men’s group with a total score of 57.340. He will be the alternate for the United States’ men’s spot in the Paris Games, which begin July 26 with opening ceremonies.

Sarah Webster won the women’s finals on Wednesday with a score of 55.070. Based on the scores from Monday and Tuesday’s elite competition, Nicole Ahsinger will be the women’s Paris alternate.

Related Articles

Olympics |


Lakeville’s Regan Smith wins 200 backstroke, her third triumph of U.S. Olympic trials

Olympics |


Lakeville’s Regan Smith wins 200 butterfly at U.S. Olympic swim trials

Olympics |


Lakeville’s Regan Smith sets world record in 100 backstroke at U.S. Olympic trials

Olympics |


The Olympics are more than fun and games. They’re a billion-dollar business with political overtones

Olympics |


Olympic champion Suni Lee back in form after gaining 45 pounds in water weight due to kidney ailment