Legal literature and case law depict the infamous conviction of Alfred Dreyfus for treason and espionage in 1899 as a prime example of the power of even grossly fallacious mathematical demonstrations to overwhelm a legal tribunal. This Essay shows that Dreyfus is not a case of mathematics run amok, unchecked and uncomprehended. To the contrary, the defects in the mathematical proof were dramatically exposed, and this evidence did not lead Dreyfus’s judges to condemn him. This history undercuts the reliance of modern courts and commentators on Dreyfus as an indication or illustration of the alleged dangers of probability evidence in criminal cases.
Minnesota Law Review
News & Events
-
Volume 97 Lead Piece Profiled in New York Times
The Volume 97 Lead Piece, a study of how the Supreme Court treats business interests by distinguished legal scholars Lee Epstein, William M. Landes, and Richard A. Posner, was profiled in the May 5, 2013 edition of the New York Times. The story, titled Corporations Find a Friend in the Supreme Court, [...]
-
Volume 98 Spring Submissions Closed
The Minnesota Law Review has closed the spring submissions period for Volume 98. Submissions for Volume 98 will reopen on Thursday, August 1. Please see the submissions page for more details.
-
Volume 98 Submissions Will Open Feb. 15
The Minnesota Law Review will begin accepting submissions for Volume 98 on Friday, February 15, 2013. Please see this page for more details.
-
Minnesota Law Review Announces Volume 98 Editorial Board
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce its Volume 98 editorial board, headed by Editor in Chief Jake Vandelist.
-
Minnesota Law Review Announces 2013 Symposium Topic
The Minnesota Law Review is pleased to announce that its 2013 symposium will address the legal and political issues facing organized labor in the United States. The symposium will be held at the University of Minnesota Law School on October 25, 2013.
Recent Issues
- Volume 97 – No. 5
- Volume 97 – No. 4
- Volume 97 – No. 3
- Volume 97 – No. 2
- Volume 97 – No. 1
- Volume 96 – No. 6
- Volume 96 – No. 5
- Volume 96 – No. 4
- Volume 96 – No. 3
- Volume 96 – No. 2
- Volume 96 – No. 1
- Volume 95 – No. 6
- Volume 95 – No. 5
- Volume 95 – No. 4
- Volume 95 – No. 3
- Volume 95 – No. 2
- Volume 95 – No. 1
- Volume 94 – No. 6
- Volume 94 – No. 5
- Volume 94 – No. 4
- Volume 94 – No. 3
- Volume 94 – No. 2
- Volume 94 – No. 1
- Volume 93 – No. 6
- Volume 93 – No. 5
- Volume 93 – No. 4
- Volume 93 – No. 3
- Volume 93 – No. 2
- Volume 93 – No. 1
- Volume 92 – No. 6
- Volume 92 – No. 5
- Volume 92 – No. 4
- Volume 92 – No. 3
- Volume 92 – No. 2
- Volume 92 – No. 1
- Volume 91 – No. 6
- Volume 91 – No. 5
- Volume 91 – No. 4
- Volume 91 – No. 3
- Volume 91 – No. 2
- Volume 91 – No. 1
- Volume 90 – No. 6
- Volume 90 – No. 5
- Volume 90 – No. 4
- Volume 90 – No. 3
- Volume 90 – No. 2
- Volume 90 – No. 1