{"id":3894,"date":"2025-03-31T13:30:56","date_gmt":"2025-03-31T13:30:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?p=3894"},"modified":"2025-03-31T13:30:56","modified_gmt":"2025-03-31T13:30:56","slug":"pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/","title":{"rendered":"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD)"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n
I often claim, in Evidence lectures, that Rule 105 is the most powerful of the rules.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 It justifies admission of almost any piece of proof, no matter how much collateral damage it carries, because \u201c[t]he presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions,\u201d Samia v. United States<\/i>, 599 U.S. 635, 646 (2024), is an article of faith in the law. But legal history and science undercut this dogma, and as advocates we need to know both what the law is and where it is vulnerable to challenge based on research.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
This issue came to the fore in an Amicus<\/i>\u00a0Brief this author contributed to in a case where, during a recorded police interrogation, the Detective is heard saying \u201cI know that you were right there\u201d and \u201cWe\u2019re quite confident we have the right person here.\u201d\u00a0 The question being briefed was how to remedy such situations, because the only current option was to tell jurors \u2018don\u2019t use those words for their truth but to explain how the suspect was questioned and then responded.\u2019\u00a0 The brief urged redaction of taped interrogations because, in our view, a limiting instruction could not work.\u00a0 The balance of this BRAIN LESSON is from the Brief and its discussion of the fallacy of the Samia <\/i>presumption, slightly edited for this article.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
THE BRIEF<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The presupposition that jurors can indeed pay no attention to the man behind the curtain has at times been recognized by jurists as questionable, with the most notable instance being Justice Jackson in 1949: \u201cThe na\u00efve assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury, . . . all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction.\u201d Krulewitch v. United States<\/i>, 336 U.S. 440, 453 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring). The Supreme Court cited Justice Jackson\u2019s admonition approvingly nearly twenty years later. See Burgett v. Texas<\/i>, 389 U.S. 109, 115 n.7 (1967) (\u201cWhat Mr. Justice Jackon said in Krulewitch <\/i>. . . in the sensitive area of conspiracy is equally applicable in this sensitive area of repetitive crimes. . . .\u201d).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Even when endorsing the proposition, some jurists acknowledge the difficulty a juror will have in following the direction.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
it is difficult to set aside opinions that arise naturally and to confine evidence of an inflammatory nature to a purpose whose limitations conflict with intuitive thought processes. I have no doubt that jurors across this Commonwealth are capable of rising to this challenge, and that they do so on a daily basis in our courtrooms. This does not, however, obviate the fact that putting aside such innate reactions is a daunting task for any person.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Commonwealth v. Hicks<\/u>, \u00a0156 A.3d 1114, 1157-58 (Wecht, J., dissenting).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Indeed, courts have long recognized that certain forms of evidence are so prejudicial that limiting instructions are an insufficient remedy and, instead, preclusion is required. In dealing with the admission of an unredacted confession of a non-testifying codefendant, the United States Supreme Court explained:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
[T]here are some contexts in which the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored. Such a context is presented here, where the powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statements of a codefendant, who stands accused side-by-side with the defendant, are deliberately spread before the jury in a joint trial.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Bruton v. United States<\/u>, 391 U.S. 123, 135-36 (1968) (internal citations omitted).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
The presumption that jurors can dutifully follow limiting instructions was developed nearly 150 years ago.\u00a0 Pennsylvania Co. v. Roy<\/u>, 102 U.S. 451, 459 (1880)) (\u201cThe presumption credits jurors by refusing to assume that they are either \u2018too ignorant to comprehend, or were too unmindful of their duty to respect, instructions\u2019 of the court.\u201d). \u00a0This, of course, was at a time when there was no scientific research on cognitive biases or the ability of lay jurors to comprehend and apply legalistic jury instructions. Today, social science confirms that a traditional limiting instruction cannot remedy the disclosure of improper police opinion testimony.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
As explained more than a decade ago, \u201c[t]here are two well-known facts about evidentiary instructions of both varieties. The first is that our system relies heavily on these instructions. The second is that they do not work.\u201d David Alan Sklansky, Evidentiary Instructions and the Jury as Other<\/i>, 65 Stan. L. Rev. 407, 408 (Mar. 2013). Extensive research from over several decades confirms that, in certain scenarios, judicial instructions do not adequately cure jurors\u2019 exposure to unfairly prejudicial evidence. See, e.g.<\/i>, Rochelle Wissler & Michael J. Saks, On the Inefficacy of Limiting Instructions: When Jurors Use Prior Conviction Evidence to Decide on Guilt<\/i>, 9 Law & Human Behav. 37, 47 (1985) (concluding that \u201cthe presentation of the defendant\u2019s criminal record . . . increases the likelihood of conviction, and . . . the judge\u2019s limiting instructions do not appear to correct that error<\/i>[] [because] [p]eople\u2019s decision processes do not employ the prior-conviction evidence in the way the law wishes them to use it\u201d (emphasis added)); Joel D. Lieberman & Jamie Arndt, Understanding the Limits of Limiting Instructions: Social Psychological Explanations for the Failures of Instructions to Disregard Pretrial Publicity and Other Inadmissible Evidence<\/i>, 6 Psychol. Pub. Pol\u2019y & L. 677, 677, 703 (Sept. 2000) (finding that \u201cthe majority of extant empirical research indicates that jurors do not adhere to limiting instructions\u201d and that they are at best \u201crelatively ineffective\u201d and at worst may backfire, causing jurors to pay more <\/i>attention to inadmissible evidence).<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Perhaps the most important compilation of such research is found in Nancy Steblay et al., The Impact on Juror Verdicts of Judicial Instruction to Disregard Inadmissible Evidence: A Meta-Analysis<\/i>, 30 L. & Human Behav. 469, 475 (2006). Reviewing over 40 studies, Steblay and colleagues concluded that the science showed the inadequacy of general limiting instructions, particularly those that did not explain to the jury the reasoning behind the instruction:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
We have learned from these data that when inadmissible evidence [\u201cIE\u201d] does make a significant impression on jurors, a corrective judicial admonition does not fully eliminate the impact. Both defense-slanted and prosecution-slanted IE retained a significant impact on verdicts even after judicial admonition. This effect, although small, was quite robust. For pro-prosecution IE, a stronger effect (i.e., less success of the instruction) was associated with judicial instructions that failed to provide a reason for inadmissibility or justified the admonition with a statement that indicated that the evidence was illegally obtained.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Id. <\/i>at 486. The overall assessment was that \u201c[t]aken as a whole, it is clear that judicial instructions do not effectively eliminate jurors\u2019 use of inadmissible evidence.\u201d Id. <\/i>at 487.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
As to why this occurs, the reasons are several. One is reactance, a resistance to being told what not <\/i>to do. The second is in the difficulty of understanding what is often complex and somewhat opaque language in the instruction itself. A third is that jurors process information into a narrative, and where evidence is admitted for a limited purpose, it may still be adapted for other improper purposes if it fits the story schema. See, e.g.<\/i>, David A. Sonenshein, The Misuse of Rule 404(B) on the Issue of Intent in Federal Courts<\/i>, 45 Creighton L. Rev. 215, 270-71 (Dec. 2011); Lieberman & Arndt, supra<\/i>, at 694-704; Schuyler C. Davis, No Substitution for Justice: Solving the <\/i>Bruton Problem Through Per Se Trial Severance<\/i>, 50 U. Mem. L. Rev. 695, 721 (Spring 2020); Lisa Kern Griffin, Narrative, Truth, and Trial<\/i>, 101 Geo. L.J. 281, 325 (Jan. 2013). As elaborated by Professor Dan Simon:<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Limited purpose instructions are premised on a belief in people\u2019s ability to exert formidable control over their cognitive processing. This assumption runs contrary to the research. Many social judgments occur automatically, and this resists conscious control. Given that turning information on and off at will is an unnatural task that is unparalleled in everyday life, it is not surprising to find that this instruction is basically ineffective in preventing the drawing of impermissible conclusions.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Dan Simon, In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process<\/i>, 187 (Harvard Univ. Press 2012). Ultimately, a \u201climiting jury instruction could actually increase the prejudicial effect of unfavorable evidence against the defendant by causing jurors to increase their focus on that evidence.\u201d Sonenshein, supra<\/i>, at 271.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
OUR LESSONS?<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 What is the upshot?\u00a0 From a proponent\u2019s perspective, Rule 105 favors admissibility.\u00a0 From the opponent\u2019s position, four issues arise.\u00a0 First, an effective lawyer will try and analogize their circumstance to a codefendant confession case.\u00a0 Regardless, can you use science to say \u201cJudge, under Rule 403 this must be excluded as it can\u2019t be fixed by a jury instruction.\u201d\u00a0 If that does not prevail, can you get a plain English instruction that explains the \u2018why\u2019 of inadmissibility and maybe get jurors to cabin the proof\u2019s use.\u00a0 Finally, can the lawyer do this themselves, in jury selection and then in closing argument \u2013 teach the jury the harm that will be done if the proof is not limited.\u00a0 But don\u2019t count on anyone forgetting the man behind the curtain.<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I often claim, in Evidence lectures, that Rule 105 is the most powerful of the rules.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 It justifies admission of almost any piece of proof, no matter how much collateral damage it carries, because \u201c[t]he presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions,\u201d Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635, 646 (2024), is an article of<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":31,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"generate_page_header":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"coauthors":[330],"class_list":["post-3894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-brain-lessons"],"yoast_head":"\nPAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD) - Advocacy and Evidence Resources<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD) - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I often claim, in Evidence lectures, that Rule 105 is the most powerful of the rules.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 It justifies admission of almost any piece of proof, no matter how much collateral damage it carries, because \u201c[t]he presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions,\u201d Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635, 646 (2024), is an article of\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-03-31T13:30:56+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\"},\"headline\":\"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD)\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-31T13:30:56+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/\"},\"wordCount\":1475,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Brain Lessons\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/\",\"name\":\"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD) - Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-03-31T13:30:56+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD)\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"description\":\"Just another Law Sites site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png\",\"width\":711,\"height\":220,\"caption\":\"Advocacy and Evidence Resources\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e\",\"name\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD) - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD) - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","og_description":"I often claim, in Evidence lectures, that Rule 105 is the most powerful of the rules.\u00a0 Why?\u00a0 It justifies admission of almost any piece of proof, no matter how much collateral damage it carries, because \u201c[t]he presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions,\u201d Samia v. United States, 599 U.S. 635, 646 (2024), is an article of","og_url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/","og_site_name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","article_published_time":"2025-03-31T13:30:56+00:00","author":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/"},"author":{"name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e"},"headline":"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD)","datePublished":"2025-03-31T13:30:56+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/"},"wordCount":1475,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Brain Lessons"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/","name":"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD) - Advocacy and Evidence Resources","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-03-31T13:30:56+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/2025\/03\/31\/pay-no-attention-to-the-man-behind-the-curtain-or-the-really-bad-proof-you-just-heard\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN (OR THE REALLY BAD PROOF YOU JUST HEARD)"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#website","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","description":"Just another Law Sites site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#organization","name":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2021\/07\/AER-LOGO.png","width":711,"height":220,"caption":"Advocacy and Evidence Resources"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/#\/schema\/person\/ebe47f403ad14e2c5faec834f2d8472e","name":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g6b68adb939ecac32ef61d8026f0bafe4","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d2a56b84151f5331c5c999af7a12cc505aeed9fec929142bc9dd30b398301e5b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Jules M Epstein (hehimhis)"},"url":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/author\/tug27334\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3894","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/31"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3894"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3894\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3895,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3894\/revisions\/3895"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3894"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.temple.edu\/aer\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=3894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}