Toward an Empirical Approach to Evidentiary Ruling

This paper responds to criticisms/misconstruals of our measure of the maximum probative value of evidence (D. Davis & W. C. Follette, 2002), and our conclusions regarding the potentially prejudicial role of intuitive profiling evidence, including motive. We argue that R. D. Friedman and R. C. Park's (2003) criticisms and example cases are largely based on inappropriate violation of the presumption of innocence. Further, we address the merits of our absolute difference measure of probative value versus those of the Bayesian likelihood ratio championed by D. H. Kaye and J. J. Koehler (2003). We recommend methods for presentation of measures of evidence utility that convey complexities of interdependence between new and existing evidence. Finally, we propose a probable cause standard for admission of potentially prejudicial evidence, dictating that admissibility of such evidence should be contingent upon other substantial evidence of guilt.     

Polyclonal systemic immunoblast proliferation: an unusual hematologic entity presenting as a medical examiner case

A 43-year-old woman who was receiving oral antibiotics for several days for a superficial foot infection developed a persistent rash, fever, and lymphadenopathy, despite discontinuation of the antibiotic and administration of steroids for a presumed drug reaction. Hours after a subsequent visit to the emergency room for worsening symptoms, she died at home. At autopsy, there was a florid, systemic proliferation of polyclonal plasma cells and immunoblasts infiltrating nearly every organ and tissue of the body, most notably the lymph nodes and spleen. The polyclonal nature of the process was confirmed by immunofixation electrophoresis and immunohistochemistry. Cases of fatal polyclonal systemic immunoblast proliferations are extremely rare, and the trigger for such proliferations is not always known. We review the literature on this unusual entity and discuss the clinical and pathologic findings.     

The two freedoms,economic growth and development: An empirical study

Log-linear methods are applied to categorical data containing economic freedom, political freedom, the level of income, and the rate of economic growth for a panel of about 100 countries from 1975 to 1992. The main results are: given economic freedom, the rate of economic growth is independent of political freedom and the level of income; given the level of income, political freedom is independent of economic freedom and the growth rate. The analysis suggests the fundamental effects of economic freedom in fostering economic growth, and a high level of income as the condition of a high degree of political freedom.     

Recovering the Indigenous Legal Traditions of India: Classical Hindu Law in Practice in Late Medieval Kerala

The collection of Malayalam records entitled Vanjeri Grandhavari, taken from the archives of an important Namputiri Brahmin family and the temple under its leadership, provides some long-awaited information regarding a wide range of legal activities in late medieval Kerala. The organization of law and the jurisprudence represented by these records bear an unmistakable similarity to legal ideas found in dharmastra texts. A thorough comparison of the records and relevant dharma texts shows that landholding Namputiri Brahmins, who possessed enormous political and economic power in the region, mediated the implementation of dharmastra into the legal system. From this comparison arise new understandings of law and legal categories such as custom and positive law. Moreover, such comparisons begin to elucidate the problems involved in Western assumptions that it is textual law, not its interpretation and application by humans, which controls behavior. The Vanjeri records demonstrate not only the importance of dharmastra as a historical document but also the manner and extent to which dharmastra provided the foundation for legal systems in Kerala as well as in other regions of India.     

Mapping Public Participation in Policy Choices

In an era of democratic discontent, more and better participation in policy making has become a standard expectation. Yet it is rarely clear what counts as participation, and how the many practices loosely bundled under the label should be understood. This paper has a modest undergrowth‐clearing objective: to examine assumptions behind competing typologies of participation, and to propose a classification framework less laden by idealist notions of democracy.