IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v8y2011is1p72-98.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Probable Cause, Probability, and Hindsight

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
  • Chris Guthrie
  • Andrew J. Wistrich

Abstract

When judges assess probable cause, they must do so either in foresight (when determining whether to issue a warrant) or in hindsight (when determining whether to allow the admission of evidence obtained without a search warrant). Although the legal standard for probable cause is the same, and the facts that might support cause are the same, judges who assess probable cause in hindsight invariably know whether a search produced incriminating evidence or not. Research on the hindsight bias suggests that judges will be unable to set aside this knowledge and judge probable cause as if they were working in foresight. In this article, we present three experiments in which we asked 900 state and federal judges to make judgments of probable cause either in foresight or in hindsight, in hypothetical cases. Surprisingly, we found that that judges make similar rulings on probable cause in foresight and in hindsight. We also found that hindsight appears to cloud judges' abilities to assess the likely outcome of the search, but hindsight does not influence their legal judgments.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey J. Rachlinski & Chris Guthrie & Andrew J. Wistrich, 2011. "Probable Cause, Probability, and Hindsight," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(s1), pages 72-98, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:8:y:2011:i:s1:p:72-98
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01230.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01230.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2011.01230.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Doron Teichman & Eyal Zamir & Ilana Ritov, 2023. "Biases in legal decisionā€making: Comparing prosecutors, defense attorneys, law students, and laypersons," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(4), pages 852-894, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:8:y:2011:i:s1:p:72-98. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.