Northwestern University Study

Hard to tell from the article how they determine which cases were decided incorrectly. If they have it down to a science, maybe we should scrap the jury system and let them decide cases??

"Instead, he determined the probability that a mistake was made by looking at how often judges disagreed with the jury's verdict."

"If they disagree they can't both be right," he explained.

Maybe somebody more mathematically inclined can explain that methodology to me. To my stuggled-with-college algebra brain that just doesn't sound kosher. Judges and juries don't always see eye to eye on cases, therefore the system is hugely flawed? Can reasonable minds not differ on whether the reasonable doubt threshold has been crossed?

And what about the possiblity that both were wrong when they agreed ?

Talk radio in Austin has already latched on to the story. How long before a defense attorney blurts those stats out during jury selection...

I am anxious to read the report and see how on earth they can claim to know which cases were decided incorrectly. If it is actually based on the incidence of disagreement between the jury and the judge, that makes no sense. If a jury was the factfinder, did they interview the judge after the trial? If the judge was the factfinder, there is no jury to poll.

This topic is discussed in more detail here. There is also a link to the study itself so you can see the methodology used.