Incidences of rigorous proofs used in legal proceedings Motivation: Loius Pojman mentions in What Can We Know? (2001) of a certain Carneades (ca. 214-129 B.C>)  who must have been a "remarkable dialectician"because " in 155BC he was sent on a diplomatic mission to Rome and in his spare time he gave two lectures. On first day he eulogized justice, making a profound impression on his audience. To their amazement on the second day he gave a diatribe against justice, arguing that there were equally good reasons for not adopting it".
Research yielded the Carneades argumentation framework. 
However I am interested in the more recent ones. Here's one:

The Mathematical Proof that got a Physicist out of a Traffic Ticket
Dmitri Krioukov, a UC San Diego
  physicist, was recently given a ticket
  for running a stop sign. He went to
  court to argue the ticket, armed with
  a scientific paper that mathematically
  demonstrated that he really had
  stopped. He won.
Krioukov has since posted the entire
  paper, rather immodestly called "The
  Proof of Innocence", on the arXiv
  server. It's probably debatable how
  much his ironclad mathematical
  reasoning really helped determine his
  innocence - it's just as likely the
  judge threw out the ticket when it was
  demonstrated another car had
  obstructed the ticketing police
  officer's view. Still, let's take a
  look at...

Full ezine article
Here is the arXiv paper. 
Are there any similar cases?
EDIT: Peter Suber has a description of the case on the famous Paradox of Court here.
 A: This is not exactly an answer to the question but interesting none-the-less.
In 2005 the British model Kate Moss was filmed putting some kind of white powder, allegedly cocaine, up her nose.  The police wanted to press charges for possessing illegal drugs.  However the pictures could not demonstrate exactly what the substance was, in particular whether it was a Class A or Class B drug, each of which would require different charges to be brought.  The British legal system does not allow a person to be tried on a disjunction of two charges so the case was dropped.
Legal reasoning is often different to mathematical reasoning, but I found it amusing to see the courts employing intuitionist logic in this case, whereas mathematicians would usually be satisfied with a classical proof.
Details: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5082546.stm
A: For a case which very nearly came to court disputing a claim made by a company to have built a computer chip mathematically proven to meet its specification, take a look at this section of an article by Donald MacKenzie: http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=rx3oUTzjh8sC&pg=PA134. It would have been wonderful to have had barristers contest the nature of mathematical proof. Mackenzie writes about the case at greater length in 'Mechanizing Proof: Computing, Risk, and Trust' MIT Press 2001.
A: This is perhaps a borderline example.  I heard this story from BCnrd a few years ago, so I hope it hasn't been too mangled in my head since then.
One day, Ken Ribet got a phone call in his office:


*

*"Is this Professor Ribet?"

*"Yeah."

*"Could you tell me what one tenth of one percent means?"

*"One part in a thousand."

*"Are you willing to give that answer under oath?"


It turns out that someone around Berkeley had rented some property, and the rental contract specified that the landlord could not increase the rent by more than one tenth of one percent each year.  When the landlord tried to raise it by more, the tenant sued.
At the trial, the tenant's lawyer called in the expert witness.  They swore him in, asked him about his job and his qualifications, then came the key question:


*

*"Professor Ribet, what, in your expert view, is one tenth of one percent?"

*"It's one part in a thousand."


Before he could give a rigorous proof, the landlord's lawyer said, "Objection!  Anyone reading the contract can tell that it obviously meant one part in 10."  The judge agreed, and threw out the case.
A: In France some roadside apparatus will take a picture of you at point A and another apparatus will take a picture at point B on the same highway. They will then apply the mean value theorem to determine if you deserve a ticket for speeding.
A: There are several famous cases of fallacious statistical arguments leading to wrongful convictions, where recognition of the error was a major or contributing factor in the eventual overturn of the decision. Such errors are broadly grouped under The Prosecutor's Fallacy - the fallacy of calculating $P(evidence|innocent)$, which is typically tiny, and equating it to $P(innocent|evidence)$, which may not be small when the unconditional probability $P(evidence)$ is itself small.
A: Note: Firstly, I apologize for asking the question without spending substantial amount of time doing research. After posting OP, I found the following resources to be a good starting point. As it turns out there are mostly game-theoretic approaches through argumentation theory.


*

*Strategic Argumentation: A Game
Theoretical Investigation

*Heuristics in Argumentation:A
Game-Theoretical Investigation

*Game Theory and the Law

*Argumentation and Game Theory

*Fictitious legal cases in The Case
of the Speluncean Explorers:Nine New
Opinions
A: A new book titled Math on Trial: How Numbers Get Used and Abused in the Courtroom was published on March 12, 2013 that exclusively seems to address this question. It may not involve "rigorous proofs" but the book contains cases where math was (ab)used.
Here's the blurb from Amazon:

In Math on Trial, mathematicians Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez describe ten trials spanning from the nineteenth century to today, in which mathematical arguments were used—and disastrously misused—as evidence. They tell the stories of Sally Clark, who was accused of murdering her children by a doctor with a faulty sense of calculation; of nineteenth-century tycoon Hetty Green, whose dispute over her aunt’s will became a signal case in the forensic use of mathematics; and of the case of Amanda Knox, in which a judge’s misunderstanding of probability led him to discount critical evidence—which might have kept her in jail. Offering a fresh angle on cases from the nineteenth-century Dreyfus affair to the murder trial of Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk, Schneps and Colmez show how the improper application of mathematical concepts can mean the difference between walking free and life in prison.
A colorful narrative of mathematical
  abuse, Math on Trial blends courtroom
  drama, history, and math to show that
  legal expertise isn’t always enough to
  prove a person innocent.

