—————————————————————————————
Professor Peter Tillers of Cardozo Law School in New York blogs for JURIST on the latest evidence issues...
—————————————————————————————
Friday, January 28, 2005
A Witness, Two Lawyers, and a Trial Judge Form Some Beliefs, Make Some Statements, and Shape a Lawsuit
The Difficulty of Pretrial or Prelitigation Investigation and Planning
Question: Why is the investigation of and planning for a possible lawsuit and trial more difficult than planning and preparation in the somewhat-but-not-precisely comparable settings & situations mentioned (see below) by David B. Leake in Artificial Intelligence?
In real-world situations, it is seldom possible to generate a complete plan in advance and then execute it without changes. The state of the world may be imperfectly-known, the effects of actions may be uncertain, the world may change while the plan is being generated or executed, and the plan may require the coordination of multiple cooperating agents, or counterplanning to neutralize the interference of agents with opposing goals. Determining the state of the world and guiding action requires the ability to gather information about the world, though sensors such as sonar or cameras, and to interpret that information to draw conclusions (See MACHINE VISION). In addition, carrying out actions in a messy and changing world may require rapid responses to important events (e.g., for a robot-guided vehicle to correct a skid), or an ongoing process of rapidly selecting actions based on the current context (for example, when a basketball player must avoid an opponent). Such problems have led to research on reactive planning, as well as on how to integrate reactive methods with the deliberative methods providing long-term guidance (See ROBOTICS). The RoboCup Federation sponsors an annual series of competitions between robot soccer teams as a testbed for demonstrating new methods and extending the state of the art in robotics (www.robocup.org).
Would you like to blog for JURIST? JURIST is currently seeking law professors interested in voicing opinions and views in specific subject areas on a regular basis. E-mail JURIST@law.pitt.edu
JURIST BLOGGER
Professor Peter Tillers
"I have practiced a little bit of law -- I worked as a litigator, once in California and once in Texas -- but for most of my professional life I have studied and taught law.
In the early part of my academic career I dabbled in philosophy, particularly the philosophies of Kant and Hegel. But as I matured, I came to my senses. This explains why during the last 15 years I have devoted much more attention to evidence, inference, and proof in litigation than to German Idealism and similar matters. However, I did not succeed in completely obliterating the influence of philosophy and epistemology on my thinking. Thus, in my effort to understand and explain the process of proof in litigation, I have devoted a great deal of attention to matters such as probability theory and theories of evidence, inference, induction, and proof.
Peter Tillers is Professor of Law at Cardozo Law School, Yeshiva University. He revised volumes 1 &1A of Wigmore on Evidence (1983) and is the author of Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence (1988; with E. Green).
TILLERS ON EVIDENCE
