In 2002, having spent more than three years in one…
““In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street. A few years later, jury duty again. The judge states that the defendant is charged with possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine. It was found on his body, he was arrested, and he is now on trial. This time, after the Q&A is over, the judge asks us whether there are any questions we’d like to ask the court, and I say, “Yes, Your Honor. Why did you say he was in possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine? That equals 1.7 grams. The ‘thousand’ cancels with the ‘milli-’ and you get 1.7 grams, which is less than the weight of a dime.” Again I’m out on the street.””
About This Quote
This interpretation was drafted with AI assistance. It is one reading of the quote, not the author's own explanation.
He illustrates how precise language and mathematical reasoning can reveal errors in legal contexts.
In simple terms: Precise language can expose legal mistakes.
Key Takeaway
Pay attention to detail in communication.
Themes
critical thinking
law
science
Mood
analytical
skeptical
Type
educational
inspirational
When to use this quote
- jury duty
- court testimony
- science communication
Key Concepts
measurement
evidence evaluation
legal reasoning
Questions to Reflect On
- How can scientists better influence legal processes?
- What are the limits of quantitative arguments in court?
A Different Perspective
Legal systems may not always value scientific precision.