Smith (2018) argues that, unlike other forms of evidence, naked statistical evidence fails to satisfy normic support. This is his solution to the puzzles of statistical evidence in legal proof. This paper focuses on Smith’s claim that DNA evidence in cold-hit cases does not satisfy normic support. I argue that if this claim is correct, virtually no other form of evidence used at trial can satisfy normic support. This is troublesome. I discuss a few ways in which Smith can respond.

中文翻译：

---

证明悖论和规范支持：社会化还是相对化？

史密斯（Smith，2018）认为，与其他形式的证据不同，裸露的统计证据无法满足规范支持。这是他对法律证据中的统计证据之谜的解决方案。本文着重于史密斯的主张，即冷遇案件中的DNA证据不符合规范支持。我认为，如果这一主张是正确的，则实际上在审判中使用的其他任何形式的证据都不能满足规范的支持。这很麻烦。我讨论了史密斯可以做出回应的几种方式。