Minnesota Law Review

Aggregating Probabilities Across Cases: Criminal Responsibility for Unspecified Offenses

Should a court convict a defendant for unspecified offenses if there is no reasonable doubt that he committed an offense, even though no particular offense has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? Suppose a defendant is charged with two unrelated offenses allegedly committed at different times and places: pickpocketing and rape. The probability that he committed each one of the offenses is .9. Assume that the minimum threshold required for conviction is .95. Under prevailing law, the defendant would be acquitted of both charges since no offense can be specifically attributed to him. However, a simple calculation of the probability that the defendant committed at least one offense amounts to .99. Consequently, it seems that convicting him for one offense without specifying what this offense is and punishing him with the sanction designed for the least severe offense would be just and efficient. We call the principle that requires such an aggregation the “aggregate probabilities principle” (APP).

This Article proposes that under certain conditions, deterrence, efficient law enforcement, and minimization of adjudication errors would be better achieved if courts applied the APP. The Article also addresses the most powerful possible objections to this method and suggests that the aggregation principle be adopted only under strict conditions that preclude its potential abuse by the prosecution. In addition, the Article shows that sometimes aggregating probabilities will yield fewer, rather than more, convictions. If the APP is adopted, the presumption of innocence currently applied with regard to the offense will be replaced by a presumption of innocence applied to the accused.

:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Dan’s Flaw

    DAN’S [F]LAW: STATUTORY FAILURE TO ENFORCE ETHICAL BEHAVIOR IN CLINICAL DRUG TRIALS Noah Lewellen* I. INTRODUCTION Paul, a sophomore at the University of Minnesota, bursts into a lecture hall, loudly claims to see monsters sitting in the seats, and offers his services in slaying them. The police are called, and [...]

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]