When statistical evidence is not specific enough

Many philosophers have pointed out that statistical evidence, or at least some forms of it, lack desirable epistemic non-epistemic properties, and this should make us wary litigations in which the case against defendant rests whole part on evidence. Others responded such broad reservations about evidence are overly restrictive since appellate courts expressed nuanced views In an effort to clarify reconcile, I put forward interpretive analysis why raise concerns cases but not others. argue when there is a mismatch between specificity expected accusation, evidence—as any other kind evidence—should be considered insufficient sustain conviction. rely different stylized court illustrate explanatory power analysis.