united-states us-supreme-court perjury testimony
Known incorrect expert testimony to the SCOTUS, which may not deceive the common man. Is it illegal?
<p>A <a href="https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/49969/is-there-less-than-a-one-in-a-quadrillion-chance-of-biden-winning-states-where-t">sceptics answer</a> discusses the misleading statistical analysis in the Texas vs. Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin lawsuit that lead to the claim that there is less than a one in a quadrillion chance of Biden winning these states.  However, what struck me was the footnote at the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/20201208132827887_TX-v-State-ExpedMot%202020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf#page=22" rel="nofollow noreferrer">bottom of page 22</a>, that make 2 statements that to me as a non-mathematician are obviously incorrect.  The text is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As Z increases, the number of zeros increase exponentially.  A Z of 396.3 is a chance in 1 in almost an infinite number or outcomes of finding the two results being from the same population</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are 2 incorrect statements here:</p>
<p><strong>As Z increases, the number of zeros increase exponentially</strong></p>
<p>An exponential relationship means that as the independent variable (here Z) increases the dependent variable (here number of zeros) changes proportionally to a constant raised to the power of the independent variable.  In this case, the number of zeros does go up a lot, and in a fairly complex way, but not precisely exponentially.</p>
<p><strong>A Z of 396.3 is a chance in 1 in almost an infinite number</strong></p>
<p>All finite numbers are equally far from infinity as all other finite numbers.  &quot;Almost infinite&quot; has no meaning that I am aware of.  A Z of 396.3 indicates a p value that has a lot of zeros.</p>
<p>While I do not know anything about whoever wrote this, I find it unbelievable that someone would be able to calculate Z correctly, but not be aware enough of these very basic concepts to know that these statements are incorrect.  I know very little about supreme court justices, but find it similarly unlikely that people who are very good at judging probabilistic statements would not know the true meanings of these words.  However, the &quot;man on the street&quot; may well interpret these statements in a way that leads to a correct understanding, which could roughly be stated as &quot;a lot&quot;.</p>
<p>My first thought when I read this was that these statements were intentional perjury to the SCOTUS in expert testimony, and therefore a serious crime.  Is this interpretation correct?</p>

<p>This is not testimony, but rather advocacy, and is not subject to perjury laws. The only possible consequence is that an opponent could point out flaws in the argument, and this <strong>might</strong> anger or put off one or more Justices and thereby <strong>might</strong> influence votes against the party making such an incorrect statement. (Or that could happen even though no other party mentions the matter.) But it is more likely that it will have little or no impact at all -- the Court is well-known to pay little attention to statistical or other mathematical arguments, including ones generally agreed to be correct. But you never know in any particular case.</p>
<p>It is, by the way, quite rare for new testimony to be offered at the Supreme Court level, on indeed at any appellate level. Statements of alleged facts are often included in briefs, but these are not under oath and are not testimony.</p>
<p>However, this case is one of the rare cases filed under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, and is not an appeals case, as @phoog points pout. Thus there could be testimony in the court holds a hearing, but the statement linked in the question is not testimony.</p>
