ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND FORMALISMS FOR LEGAL EVIDENCE: AN INTRODUCTION

Whereas the application of artificial intelligence to law has been an active field of investigation for nearly three decades, legal evidence almost hasn't featured among such applications. A critical mass of research in this narrower field has only come into acknowledged existence after coordination initiatives (journal special issues as well as workshops) were undertaken for the very purpose of either bootstrapping the emergence of this subarea within “AI & Law,” or then to wean the extant debate among legal theorists from its exclusive focus on probabilities in law. In this introductory article to the present special issue, we take a walk through various foci for debate which are relevant for a better appreciation of the state of the art.

[1]  Aldo Franco Dragoni,et al.  MAXIMAL CONSISTENCY, THEORY OF EVIDENCE, AND BAYESIAN CONDITIONING IN THE INVESTIGATIVE DOMAIN , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[2]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  Towards AI Formalisms for Legal Evidence , 1997, ISMIS.

[3]  Stephen Marsh,et al.  Formalising Trust as a Computational Concept , 1994 .

[4]  Stuart S. Nagel,et al.  Judicial Backgrounds and Criminal Cases , 1962 .

[5]  Charles D. Phillips.  Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgment in American Culture. By Bennett W. Lance and Feldman Martha S.. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1981. Pp. x + 203. $14.50.) , 1983 .

[6]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  The art of causal conjecture , 1996 .

[7]  Ephraim Nissan.  Anticipatory narrative construal , 2001 .

[8]  Ghita Holmstrom-Hintikka.  Expert Witnesses in the Interrogative Model , 2001, Comput. Artif. Intell..

[9]  Balaraman Ravindran,et al.  A Review of Automatic Summarization , 2005 .

[10]  James E. Tomberlin,et al.  Introduction to deontic logic and the theory of normative systems , 1991 .

[11]  Margaret Cox,et al.  Human osteology in archaeology and forensic science , 2000 .

[12]  Peter Tillers,et al.  The Dynamics of Judicial Proof: Computation, Logic, and Common Sense , 2002 .

[13]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  Arguments and cases: An inevitable intertwining , 1992, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[14]  John A. Barnden,et al.  Uncertain reasoning about agents' beliefs and reasoning , 2001, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[15]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  Formal approaches to legal evidence , 2001 .

[16]  Ronald J. Allen.  Reasoning and Its Foundation: Some Responses , 1997 .

[17]  Kevin D. Ashley.  Modeling legal argument - reasoning with cases and hypotheticals , 1991, Artificial intelligence and legal reasoning.

[18]  Hugo Cesar Hoeschl,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Law , 2004, AIAI.

[19]  Y. Wilks,et al.  Artificial Believers: The Ascription of Belief , 1991 .

[20]  M. Feldman,et al.  Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom: Justice and Judgment in American Culture , 1981 .

[21]  B. Jackson.  ‘Anchored narratives' and the interface of law, psychology and semiotics , 1996 .

[22]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  SALVAGING THE SPIRIT OF THE METER-MODELS TRADITION: A MODEL OF BELIEF REVISION BY WAY OF AN ABSTRACT IDEALIZATION OF RESPONSE TO INCOMING EVIDENCE DELIVERY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF PROOF IN COURT , 2004, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[23]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury? , 1983 .

[24]  Hector-Neri Castañeda,et al.  The Paradoxes of Deontic Logic: The Simplest Solution to all of them in one Fell Swoop , 1981 .

[25]  William A. Dembski.  The Design Inference by William A. Dembski , 1998 .

[26]  J. Wigmore.  The principles of judicial proof as given by logic, psychology, and general experience, and illustrated in judicial trials , 1988 .

[27]  Şebnem Korur Fincancı,et al.  Studies in Crime an Introduction to Forensic Archaeology , 1996 .

[28]  John F. Horty,et al.  Deontic logic as founded on nonmonotonic logic , 1993, Annals of Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence.

[29]  J. Weizenbaum.  From Computer Power and Human Reason From Judgment to Calculation , 2007 .

[30]  Stephen E. Fienberg,et al.  Statistics and the Law , 1987 .

[31]  Jeremy Bentham,et al.  Rationale of Judicial Evidence: Specially Applied to English Practice , 1995 .

[32]  Ephraim Nissan.  Advances in Deontic Logic [Review] , 1998 .

[33]  Isabella Rosoni,et al.  Quae singula non prosunt collecta iuvant. La teoria della prova indiziaria nell'età medievale e moderna , 1995 .

[34]  Antonio A. Martino.  Introduction: On proof , 2001, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[35]  Ephraim Nissan.  Ray Bull and David Carson (eds.), Handbook of Psychology in Legal Contexts. , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[36]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  The DAEDALUS System: a Tool for the Italian Investigating Magistrate , 2001, Comput. Artif. Intell..

[37]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  A hybrid CBR-IR approach to legal information retrieval , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[38]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  IDENTIFICATION AND DOING WITHOUT IT, I: A SITUATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF MISAPPLIED PERSONAL IDENTITY, WITH A FORMALISM FOR A CASE OF MULTIPLE USURPED IDENTITY IN MARIVAUX , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[39]  James R. Hubler.  Review of Interpreting Evidence, Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom , 1997 .

[40]  Andrew Stranieri,et al.  Split Up: The Use of an Argument Based Knowledge Representation to Meet Expectations of Different Users for Discretionary Decision Making , 1998, AAAI/IAAI.

[41]  Andrew Stranieri,et al.  Copyright Regulation with Argumentation Agents , 2001 .

[42]  Jaime Simão Sichman,et al.  Du raisonnement social chez les agents : une approche fondée sur la théorie de la dépendance , 1995 .

[43]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  An AI Formalism for Competing Claims of Identification: Capturing the "Smemorato di Collegno" Amnesia Case , 2001, Comput. Artif. Intell..

[44]  W. W. Ball,et al.  A Short Account of the History of Mathematics . By Walter W. R. Ball. London and New York, Macmillan. 12°. $2.60 , 1888, Science.

[45]  P. Thagard,et al.  Explanatory coherence , 1993 .

[46]  Mark Pollard,et al.  Studies in Crime: An Introduction to Forensic Archaeology@@@Making Faces: Using Forensic and Archaeological Evidence , 1998 .

[47]  Yaacov Choueka,et al.  Computerized full-text retrieval systems and research in the humanities: The responsa project , 1980, Computers and the Humanities.

[48]  J. Weizenbaum.  Computer Power And Human Reason: From Judgement To Calculation , 1978 .

[49]  EPHRAIM NISSAN,et al.  IDENTIFICATION AND DOING WITHOUT IT, III: AUTHORITATIVE OPINIONS, PURPOSEFUL ACTION, RELABELED GOODS, AND FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS. THE CASE OF THE STUFFED BIRDS: ITS NARRATIVE DYNAMICS SET IN FORMULAE , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[50]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  BUILDING BLOCKS FOR AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FRAMEWORK IN THE FIELD OF LEGAL EVIDENCE, PART II , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[51]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  Integrating IR and CBR to Locate Relevant Text Passages , 1997, DEXA Workshop.

[52]  Kirk W. Junker,et al.  EXPANDING THE NOTION OF "SCIENTIFIC" , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[53]  Alex Stein,et al.  International Conference on Rights of the Accused, Crime Control and Protection of Victims. , 1997 .

[54]  Ronald Prescott Loui,et al.  Rationales and argument moves , 1995, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[55]  Adam Grobler.  Popperian Forum: Introduction , 1997 .

[56]  Richard E. Susskind,et al.  Expert systems in law , 1987 .

[57]  E. Nissan.  The Jama Legal Narrative Part II: A Foray into Concepts of Improbability , 2001 .

[58]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  Belief Revision as Applied within a Descriptive Model of Jury Deliberations , 2001 .

[59]  A. A. Martino,et al.  Expert systems in law , 1992 .

[60]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  IDENTIFICATION AND DOING WITHOUT IT, V: A FORMAL MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS FOR A CASE OF MIX-UP OF INDIVIDUALS, AND OF RECOVERY FROM FAILURE TO ATTAIN IDENTIFICATION , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[61]  J. Thayer,et al.  A Preliminary Treatise On Evidence at the Common Law , 1969 .

[62]  Edwina L. Rissland,et al.  BankXX: Supporting legal arguments through heuristic retrieval , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[63]  Richard D. Friedman.  Answering the Bayesioskeptical Challenge , 1997 .

[64]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  IDENTIFICATION AND DOING WITHOUT IT, IV: A FORMAL MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS FOR THE FEVEROLES CASE, OF MIX-UP OF KINDS AND ENSUING LITIGATION; AND A FORMALISM FOR THE "CARDIFF GIANT" DOUBLE HOAX , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[65]  Roderick Munday,et al.  Inside the Juror: The Psychology of Juror Decision Making . Edited by Reid Hastie. [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993. 269, (Index of Names) 5 and (Index of Subjects) 2pp. Hardback £35.00 net. ISBN 0–521–41988–3.] , 1993, The Cambridge Law Journal.

[66]  Wolfgang Spohn,et al.  Ordinal Conditional Functions: A Dynamic Theory of Epistemic States , 1988 .

[67]  Uri J. Schild.  Criminal Sentencing and Intelligent Decision Support , 1998 .

[68]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[69]  Rosemary Mahoney,et al.  A likely story , 1998 .

[70]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Deontic logic in computer science: normative system specification , 1994 .

[71]  Carlos E. Alchourrón,et al.  Logic Without Truth , 1990 .

[72]  P. Thagard.  Why wasn't O.J. convicted? Emotional coherence in legal inference , 2003, Cognition & emotion.

[73]  Helena Eilstein,et al.  Two Remarks , 1997 .

[74]  Tsvi Kuflik,et al.  Finding excuses with ALIBI : alternative plans that are deontically more defensible , 1991 .

[75]  Angelo Zappalà,et al.  The Conflict between Prosecution and Defense in a Child Sexual Abuse Case and in an Attempted Homicide Case , 2001 .

[76]  Franco Taroni,et al.  Statistics and the Evaluation of Evidence for Forensic Scientists , 2004 .

[77]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  A FORMALISM FOR A CASE STUDY IN THE WATERTIME PROJECT: THE CITY WATER SYSTEM IN GRENOBLE, FROM PRIVATIZATION TO REMUNICIPALIZATION , 2004, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[78]  John Zeleznikow,et al.  Risk, Negotiation and Argumentation - A Decision Support System Based Approach , 2002 .

[79]  Joseph Bell,et al.  Risk , negotiation and argumentation — a decision support system based approach , 2002 .

[80]  Paul Thagard,et al.  CAUSAL INFERENCE IN LEGAL DECISION MAKING: EXPLANATORY COHERENCE VS. BAYESIAN NETWORKS , 2004, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[81]  Bertha Wilson,et al.  Decision-Making in the Supreme Court , 1986 .

[82]  Arthur M. Farley,et al.  A model of argumentation and its application to legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[83]  Adam Grobler.  Popper's Switch from Justification to Critical Preferences , 1997 .

[84]  E. Nissan.  Can You Measure Circumstantial Evidence? The Background of Probative Formalisms for Law , 2001 .

[85]  Uri J. Schild,et al.  Intelligent computer systems for criminal sentencing , 1995, ICAIL '95.

[86]  Ephraim Nissan.  Special Issue on Intelligent Technologies for Nuclear and Electric Power Systems , 1998, Comput. Artif. Intell..

[87]  D. Schum,et al.  A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence , 1996 .

[88]  Michael G. Dyer,et al.  Learning Distributed Representations of Conceptual Knowledge and their Application to Script-based Story Processing , 1990 .

[89]  A. Tversky,et al.  Choices, Values, and Frames , 2000 .

[90]  John J. Lentini.  Review of: Introduction to Environmental Forensics , 2004 .

[91]  Alex Stein,et al.  Against ‘Free Proof’ , 1997, Israel Law Review.

[92]  Paolo Torroni,et al.  USING ABDUCTIVE LOGIC AGENTS FOR MODELING THE JUDICIAL EVALUATION OF CRIMINAL EVIDENCE , 2004, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[93]  T. Anderson,et al.  Analysis of evidence : how to do things with facts , 1997 .

[94]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Salomon: Automatic Abstracting of Legal Cases for Effective Access to Court Decisions , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[95]  Tsvi Kuflik,et al.  Interpretation of Imputed Behavior in ALIBI (1 to 3) and SKILL , 1993 .

[96]  Jørgen Lange Thomsen,et al.  Death, decay and reconstruction. Approaches to archaeology and forensic science , 1988 .

[97]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  BUILDING BLOCKS FOR AN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FRAMEWORK IN THE FIELD OF LEGAL EVIDENCE, PART I , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[98]  Roel Wieringa,et al.  Deontic logic: a concise overview , 1994 .

[99]  John Zeleznikow,et al.  Building Decision Support Systems in Discretionary Legal Domains , 2000 .

[100]  Ronald J. Allen,et al.  Artificial intelligence and the evidentiary process: The challenges of formalism and computation , 2001, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[101]  Michael Perloff.  TAKING AGENTS SERIOUSLY , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[102]  Marek J. Sergot,et al.  Deontic logic in the representation of law: Towards a methodology , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[103]  Peter McBurney,et al.  Intelligent Systems to Support Deliberative Democracy in Environmental Regulation , 2001 .

[104]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  FACETS OF ABDUCTIVE REASONING , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[105]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  Exoneration, and reasoning about it: a quick overview of three perspectives , 2000 .

[106]  Yorick Wilks,et al.  Modelling Agent Attitudes in Legal Reasoning , 2001, Comput. Artif. Intell..

[107]  John H. Dennis,et al.  Introduction to Environmental Forensics , 2003 .

[108]  William A. Dembski,et al.  The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities , 1998 .

[109]  Ephraim Nissan.  [Book review] Rights of the Accused, Crime Control and Protection of Victims , 2001 .

[110]  Henry Prakken,et al.  A dialectical model of assessing conflicting arguments in legal reasoning , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[111]  Erich Schweighofer.  The Revolution in Legal Information Retrieval or: The Empire Strikes Back , 1999, Journal of Information, Law and Technology.

[112]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  The nature of the social agent , 1994 .

[113]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  The Art of Designing Socially Intelligent Agents: Science, Fiction, and the Human in the Loop , 1998, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[114]  Ariel Porat,et al.  Tort Liability Under Uncertainty , 2002 .

[115]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon.  Argument in Artificial Intelligence and Law , 1997, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[116]  L. Thorne McCarty.  Defeasible Deontic Reasoning , 1994, Fundam. Informaticae.

[117]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  Kappa calculus and evidential strength: A note on Åqvist's logical theory of legal evidence , 2001, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[118]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  Artificial intelligence and criminal evidence: A few topics , 2000 .

[119]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  The Bayesianism debate in legal scholarship , 2001, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[120]  W. Scott Neal Reilly,et al.  An Architecture for Action, Emotion, and Social Behavior , 1992, MAAMAW.

[121]  Ray Bull,et al.  Psychology and Law: Truthfulness, Accuracy and Credibility , 2000 .

[122]  Daniel Thalmann,et al.  A high-level architecture for believable social agents , 2000, Virtual Reality.

[123]  Frank Dignum,et al.  Autonomous Norm Acceptance , 1998, ATAL.

[124]  Vern R. Walker.  Complexity, transparency, and the warranted use of formal systems in legal factfinding , 2004, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[125]  R. Bull,et al.  Handbook of psychology in legal contexts , 2003 .

[126]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Abstracting of Legal Cases: The Potential of Clustering Based on the Selection of Representative Objects , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[127]  Marie-Francine Moens,et al.  Abstracting of legal cases: the SALOMON experience , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[128]  Peter Tillers,et al.  Introduction to Symposium on Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence: The Uses and Limits of Bayesianism , 2008 .

[129]  P. Tillers,et al.  Probability and Inference in the Law of Evidence , 1988 .

[130]  Richard M. Tong,et al.  A knowledge representation for conceptual information retrieval , 1989, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[131]  Gian Piero Zarri,et al.  Representation of temporal knowledge in events: The formalism, and its potential for legal narratives , 1998 .

[132]  Barbara Hayes-Roth,et al.  A social-psychological model for synthetic actors , 1998, AGENTS '98.

[133]  Amedeo Cesta,et al.  Goal-Based Personalities and Social Behaviors in Believable Agents , 1999, Appl. Artif. Intell..

[134]  Paul McNamara,et al.  Deontic logic , 2006, Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth Century.

[135]  Peter Tillers,et al.  The Dynamics of Judicial Proof , 2002 .

[136]  William A. Dembski.  The Design Inference: Index , 1998 .

[137]  E. Simon,et al.  ASSYST - computer support for guideline sentencing , 1989, ICAIL '89.

[138]  JONATHAN YOVEL,et al.  TWO CONCEPTIONS OF RELEVANCE , 2003, Cybern. Syst..

[139]  Kiyoo Itoh,et al.  An Experimental Multimodal Disputation System , 1997 .

[140]  Olof Bolding,et al.  Aspects of the burden of proof , 1960 .

[141]  David A. Schum,et al.  Evidence marshaling for imaginative fact investigation , 2001, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[142]  Weiru Liu.  Propositional, Probabilistic and Evidential Reasoning: Integrating Numerical and Symbolic Approaches , 2001, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing.

[143]  C. E. Alchourrón,et al.  Philosophical foundations of deontic logic and the logic of defeasible conditionals , 1994 .

[144]  Francesca Toni,et al.  Abstract argumentation , 1996, Artificial Intelligence and Law.

[145]  Mike Redmayne.  Review article. A likely story , 1999 .

[146]  Bernard Robertson,et al.  Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom , 1995 .

[147]  Kevin D. Ashley,et al.  Finding factors: learning to classify case opinions under abstract fact categories , 1997, ICAIL '97.

[148]  John Zeleznikow,et al.  There is less to this argument than meets the eye , 1993 .

[149]  Aviezri S. Fraenkel,et al.  Full text document retrieval: Hebrew legal texts , 1971 .

[150]  Trevor J. M. Bench-Capon,et al.  A multi-agent legal argument generator , 2000, Proceedings 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications.

[151]  John H. Langbein.  Torture and the Law of Proof: Europe and England in the Ancien Régime , 2006 .

[152]  Ronald J. Allen,et al.  Rationality, Algorithms and Juridical Proof: A Preliminary Inquiry , 1997 .

[153]  E. Nissan.  A formalism for misapprehended identities: taking a leaf out of Pirandello , 2002 .

[154]  W. Twining.  Theories of evidence : Bentham and Wigmore , 1987 .

[155]  Richard M. Tong,et al.  Conceptual legal document retrieval using the RUBRIC system , 1987, ICAIL '87.

[156]  B. Jackson.  Towards a semiotic model of professional practice, with some narrative reflections on the criminal process , 1994 .

[157]  John R. Josephson,et al.  Abductive inference : computation, philosophy, technology , 1994 .

[158]  E. Nissan,et al.  The Jama Legal Narrative Part I: The JAMA Model and Narrative Interpretation Patterns , 2001 .

[159]  William Twining,et al.  Freedom of Proof and the Reform of Criminal Evidence , 1997, Israel Law Review.

[160]  Ephraim Nissan,et al.  IDENTIFICATION AND DOING WITHOUT IT, II: VISUAL EVIDENCE FOR PINPOINTING IDENTITY. HOW ALEXANDER WAS FOUND OUT: PURPOSEFUL ACTION, ENLISTING SUPPORT, ASSUMED IDENTITY, AND RECOGNITION. A GOAL-DRIVEN FORMAL ANALYSIS , 2003, Cybern. Syst..