Summary

Hull v. United States — Opinion of the Court

It is no answer that the defendant was free to challenge the Government's general view of statistical probabilities by presenting other explanations of the circumstances or by impeaching the Government's expert witness. We should not impose upon an accused the burden of independently generating probabilistic evidence and employing experts to study the criminal tendencies of a subgroup of the population.
Source: Wikisource

Hull v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The Government was unable to produce direct evidence that the codefendants had actually crossed the border via the railroad tunnel. In fact, all the agents could claim was that they had traced what they believed to be the co-defendants' footprints into the mouth of the tunnel. Furthermore, no direct evidence was adduced to show, assuming the pair had crossed the border, that they had crossed with marihuana. Given the lack of direct evidence on any of these matters, however, the Government understandably desired to be more persuasive.
Source: Wikisource

Hull v. United States — Opinion of the Court

The Government should live up to higher standards and not be allowed to convict people of crimes on suspicion alone.
I would reverse and order a new trial.
Notes
↑ A 'trap' is a sandy area brushed smooth at regular intervals and used to alert border patrols that persons have recently traversed the area on foot.↑ 'Signcutting' is the art of tracking the path of persons traveling in open spaces.↑ Judicial history is replete with examples of misapplied statistics in criminal cases. One prominent example was the conviction of Captain Alfred Dreyfus in France in 1899.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature