When
Title: Profile Evidence Anyone?
Abstract: Are the acts of others relevant evidence for ascertaining the acts of an individual who shares some traits with them? In this talk, I focus on profiling evidence, the most widely discussed form of evidence based on the acts of others. Courts often say that profile evidence cannot be used as evidence of “substantive guilt” or against a “specific defendant,” yet they often permit it to serve purposes that are functionally equivalent. I do not take this tension to reflect incoherence, nor do I think it is best explained as a matter of balancing crime control against the rights of defendants. I propose instead an epistemic diagnosis. The key is that two epistemic targets are in play. One is specific: whether the defendant committed the particular offense charged at trial. With respect to that target, profile evidence is, by and large, evidentially irrelevant. The other target is generic: whether the defendant has committed, or is likely to commit, an offense of a certain type. With respect to that target, profile evidence can be strongly probative. The generic target is often salient in investigation, pretrial decisions, and sentencing. In those settings, profile evidence---and risk assessment instruments, the modern data-driven counterpart of profile evidence---is routinely used. But the generic target can also surface at trial, and recognizing this eventuality helps explain the seemingly inconsistent treatment of profile evidence in the case law.
As usual, we'll meet in the Maloney Seminar Room, Social Science Building 224, 3-5p. Those unable to attend in person can spectate virtually via this Zoom link