Reply #103: You do not understand the burden of proof

[davidgmills]

First of all, election law suits are civil cases not criminal cases. The burden of proof in a civil case is not beyond a reasonable doubt (roughly a 99% probability). In a civil case the burden of proof is clear and convincing evidence (roughly a 75% probablity) or even a preponderance of the evidence (just over 50%).

At most all you would need to do in a civil case is prove that there was a 75% probability that the sample was representative.

What I am also trying to say is that under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and all the states which have essentially adopted it, when the subject matter is beyond the common understanding of a layman, experts are allowed to explain to the judge or jury what they think of the situation. They do this by giving their opinion.

In a personal injury case, a doctor may give his opinion that an automobile wreck caused the injured person to have a broken arm. The doctor who testifies almost never witnesses the accident and he doesn't have personal knowledge of the accident at all. He still gets to give his opinion based on the medical history the patient has given him.

Experts get to give their opinions on many subjects, even on subjects contained in articles and books (normally excluded by the hearsy rule). But ultimately their testimony always comes down to a matter of opinion.

Which is why I say Freeman can look at exit poll data and conclude the samples were representative and conclude in his opinion that they were random or clustered or whatever and testify what his opinion is. A judge or jury is not required to believe his opinion. If they do, his side wins. If they don't his side may lose.