Intro to Forensic psych (midterm)

Mitigation

-The action of reducing the severity, seriousness or painfulness of something. -A mitigating factor in law is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence. -Principle that a party who has suffered loss (from a tort or breach of contract) has to take reasonable action to minimize the amount of the loss suffered.

Level of Proof: Clear and convincing evidence

75 %. a higher level of burden of persuasion than "preponderance of the evidence". It is employed in administrative court determinations, as well as in civil and certain criminal procedure in the United States. Termination of Parental Rights. In civil cases, clear and convincing evidence by the plaintiff; in family law cases, termination of parental rights with clear and convincing evidence

Level of Proof: Beyond a reasonable doubt

99%. Burden of Proof on State. Used in criminal cases; Exception: In a insanity defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant, with a preponderance of evidence.

Dusky Criteria

A defendant must have both a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and be able to assist counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding of the charges against them in order to move forward to trial. In FL also required to give suggestions for restoration to competency

Modified Rule 702

Amends & adds to current rule 702 Testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data. Testimony derives from reliable principles or methods Witness has applied principles and methods reliably to facts of the case

Capital Murder:

Any murder that makes the perpetrator eligible for the death penalty, which usually involves the following factors: (1) Victim is a police officer, firefighter, or paramedic (2) Victim is a child (3) Committed during the commission of another violent felony, such as burglary, sexual assault, kidnapping, etc. (4) Multiple murders committed pursuant to one another (5) Murder-for-hire

Frye Standard

Expert Testimony- a test to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. It provides that expert opinion based on a scientific technique is admissible only where the technique is generally accepted as reliable in the relevant scientific community. The testimony is beyond the knowledge of an average person.

Murder

is the intentional killing of another person, or the accidental killing of another person while intentionally committing another crime. This is because the perpetrator should know that his illegal acts could cause the injury or death of another person, even if that was not his intent to begin with.

Due process

the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. The legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person. Due process balances the power of the law of the land and protects the individual person from it (ie right to a speedy trial)

Involuntary Manslaughter

unintentionally causes the death of another person while engaged in negligent or reckless behavior. For a charge of involuntary manslaughter to apply, the perpetrator must have had no intent to kill the victim. This might apply to a young man who crashes his car while street racing, killing a bystander. vi) Involuntary manslaughter: Involuntary manslaughter usually refers to an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence, or from an unlawful act that is a misdemeanor or low-level felony (ie DUI). The victim's death is unintended. Example: Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Distraught, Dan heads to a local bar to drown his sorrows. After having five drinks, Dan jumps into his car and drives down the street at twice the posted speed limit, accidentally hitting and killing a pedestrian.

Level of Proof: preponderance of evidence

51+%. in civil cases, the burden of proof of preponderance of evidence is on the plaintiff; In family law cases, custody is determined by "the best interest of the child" at a preponderance of evidence.

Justification defense - syndromes

i) Self defense, or defense of others (A person must have a 'reasonable perception of imminent danger of serious injury or death') ii) Committed in line of duty (police, soldiers) iii) Syndrome testimony: a syndrome is a collection of psychological symptoms that occur in a pattern and are usually found together in a particular disease or disorder. Some syndromes as subcategories of PTSD have been successfully used in various legal settings, include: SYNDROMES= (1) BWS -Before we had BWS, our legal system only allows you to try one act at a time. So if someone was abused and killed someone it isn't just because of that one act- its usually because of the accumulation of the abuse that preceded the final act - using the syndrome in that way opens up the door to allowing the history of the other acts admitted into the court. (2) Battered child syndrome (3) Child abuse accommodation syndrome -Why do some children accommodate to the abuse? They grow up, protect the parent, and don't reveal what happened to them. Helps explain why some children act counterintuitive to what we would think they would do. But if you think there is no escape, you're going to accommodate. (4) Rape trauma syndrome (5) Viet Name & Gulf War Combat (and possibly Iraq war) syndrome (6) Syndromes without research -Parental alienation syndrome -Psychological Munchausen by proxy -Pre-menstrual stress syndrome -Urban stress syndrome

Second degree murder

is the criminal act of killing another person with intent, but without pre-meditation. In simple terms, a person can face second degree murder charges if he intentionally causes another person to lose his life, with no pre-planning, or without taking an opportunity to put some thought into it. Second degree murder is less serious than first degree murder, and is not subject to the death penalty. The exact laws regarding second degree murder vary by jurisdiction, but in all states, it is considered a felony crime, and the penalties are severe. iv) 2nd degree murder: An intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life; or a killing that results from an act intended to cause seriously bodily harm. Example: Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. At a stoplight the next day, Dan sees Victor riding in the passenger seat of a nearby car. Dan pulls out a gun and fires three shots into the car, missing Victor but killing the driver of the car.

Durham v. United States * Durham Rule *

"... an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect" PROBLEMS: too ambiguous. Gives too much leniency. Does not cover if the defendant understood the wrongfulness of their crimes

M'naghten Rule

"Every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of mind, and not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong." *Sane until proven otherwise: Must prove that at the time of the crime the person was mentally incompetent from knowing what they did or if they know, they did not know it was wrong.

En banc

"On the bench" In appeals court, a session where a case is heard before all the judges of a court - not just the 3 appointed judges, as in routine cases

Actus rea

"guilty act", Proof the act itself occurred

Mens rea

"guilty mind", Proof that the person who committed the act had the requisite mental condition to do so Proof that the person who committed the act had the requisite mental condition to do so. (looking at the state of mind) i) What is a person's state of mind at the time of the crime? (1) What was their culpability? Criminal responsibility of the act? (2) Determine if something interfered with cognitive ability (in some cases volition) for level of criminal responsibility based on intent, and not act alone! (ie. Insanity, duress, self-defense, mitigation). ii) What is the person's current state of mind? (Civil) (1) In civil cases, looking at if the person's current mental state happened as a result of what happened to them- Determine if something damaged the person psychologically (2) Intent & act usually determine liability (3) Must draw nexus between what occurred and current psychological status

Certiori

(cert.) is a writ seeking judicial review. It is issued by a superior court, directing an inferior court, tribunal, or other public authority to send the record of a proceeding for review. a writ or order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court

CASE: Dusky v. United States

*Competency* Landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial. Milton Dusky, a 33-year-old man, was charged with assisting in the kidnapping and rape of an underage female. He was clearly suffering from schizophrenia but was found Competent to Stand Trial and received a sentence of 45 years. On petition of writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, the petitioner requested that his conviction be reversed on the grounds that he was not competent to stand trial at the time of the proceeding ________ Dusky criteria for competency: " A defendant had to have both a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings and be able to assist counsel with a reasonable degree of rational understanding in order to move forward to trial". i) Factual understanding refers only to the defendant's understanding of the charges against him or her and assist counsel. ii) Rational understanding is more complex and involves the defendant understanding roles of the people in the court (ie defense atty., prosecutor, etc.) and different please available and their consequences. iii) Ability to assist counsel refers to the quality of relating to one's atty. and whether or not there is evidence of any significant mental disease or intellectual or organic impairment that would interfere with effectively being able to assist one's atty. in one's own defense. (hardest part to evaluate) ______ Determine defendant's capacity to: 1.appreciate the charges or allegations against the defendant; 2. Appreciate the range and nature of possible penalties, if applicable, that may be imposed in the proceedings against the defendant; 3. Understand the adversary nature of the legal process; 4. Disclose to counsel facts pertinent to the proceedings at issue; 5. Manifest appropriate courtroom behavior; 6. Testify relevantly;

Admissibility issues

*FLORIDA IS NOT A FRYE STATE*

Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984

Brought about because of Hinkley being found not guilty due to insanity after shooting Regan. Defendant was considered not criminally responsible if by reason of severe mental illness the defendant lacked the ability to appreciate the nature and quality or Wrongfulness of the criminal act. No 'ultimate opinion' by psychiatrists OR psychologists (established parity). Back to strict M'Naghten standard. Burden of proof was shifted from the prosecution to the defense and the standard of evidence in federal trials was increased from a preponderance of evidence to clear and convincing evidence.

US Supreme court

Cases reach the US Supreme Court in one of two ways: Under original jurisdiction Original jurisdiction means the Supreme Court is the first to hear the case, acting as a trial court. The only cases currently heard under original jurisdiction involve disputes between the states, and account for only a tiny percent of the Court's work each year. Under appellate jurisdiction The Supreme Court hears appeals of cases that raise important "federal questions" involving the US Constitution, Federal laws and US Treaties. The Supreme Court may hear cases from both federal and state court systems under the following general classes: cases arising under the US Constitution cases arising under federal laws and treaties made by the United States cases affecting ambassadors, public ministers and consuls cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction cases where the United States is a party cases between a state and citizens of another state cases between citizens of different states (federal "diversity jurisdiction" for amounts in excess of $75,000 only; otherwise state court of the person filing the case) cases between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants made by different states cases between a state, or citizens thereof and foreign states citizens and subjects Most cases reach the US Supreme Court under its appellate jurisdiction. The US Supreme Court has full discretion over which cases it chooses to hear. According to the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist in his book, The Supreme Court: How It Was, How It Is, the decision whether to hear a case hinges on three major factors (paraphrased): If the decision is from one of the US Court of Appeals Circuit Courts, whether it is in conflict with the decisions of other Circuits; whether the case is of national importance, or would have a significant impact on society; or whether the lower court's decision is considered wrong in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's earlier opinions (precedents).

Levels of Responsibility

Exculpation is the act of being cleared of blame, and excuse and justification are the most common criminal defenses that achieve this. In the the criminal law system of the United States, excuse and justification are most commonly employed in affirmative defenses that provide rationale for finding the defendant not guilty, even though he committed an actus reus, possessed the necessary state of mind, and caused the damage to society that would normally constitute a criminal offense. The exculpation of guilt - in situations where it is justified or excusable - is considered to be more desirable to society than the rote prosecution of specific crimes.

Daubert Standard

Expert Testimony- Superseded Frye. Allows for more expert testimony to be presented. Six criteria helped the judge determine reliability 1. Testable hypothesis 2. Has been tested 3. Known error rate 4. Peer reviewed 5. Published 6. General acceptability

Competency to be executed

Competency for execution, called by some commentators the "last competency" for its temporal proximity to the final resolution of an inmate's legal proceedings, is raised as an issue far less often than competency to stand trial but is no less important. The legal system in the United States and many other countries has as one of its bases the presumption of competence. That is, all defendants are presumed competent unless this issue is called into question by one of the parties to a legal proceeding. The competence of a criminal defendant may arise as an issue at any point in the legal proceedings, from as early as initial arrest and interrogation, throughout the entire legal process, and finally to the time of sentencing or, for those who have been sentenced to the ultimate penalty of death, the time of execution. Just as an incompetent defendant is not allowed to proceed to trial, so too an incompetent defendant/inmate is prohibited from being sentenced or executed. The rationale against executing incompetent individuals is that, among other things, it is inhumane, neither deterrence nor retribution is accomplished, and incompetent individuals are unable to assist in appealing their sentence.

Godinez v. Moran

Competency standard for pleading guilty is the same as the competency standard for standing trial.

Competency to confess

Competency to confess refers to a suspect's ability to make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the Miranda warnings at the time of police questioning. Confessions that are given after a suspect waives his or her Miranda rights are sometimes challenged on the basis that the suspect was not competent to confess, meaning that the suspect was not capable of making a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of the Miranda rights and therefore could not have understood, appreciated, and willingly waived those rights. A confession that is successfully challenged cannot be used in court against the defendant. Assessment of competency is therefore performed after the confession is given. This assessment is performed by a mental health professional (often a forensic psychologist) and takes into account the defendant's ability at the time of the interrogation to understand the warnings and make intelligent use of them and the psychological factors that could be relevant to the court in assessing the voluntariness of the waiver.

Divisions of Court: County

County courts deal with misdemeanors and sometimes low level felonies. (1) Misdemeanor & ordinance violations (ie don't pick up dogs poop- often a fine you pay)

Competency Restoration

Court requires pronouncement Incompetent to Proceed to Trial (ITP) after mental health professionals testify Court requires pronouncement of Competent to Proceed to Trial after mental health professionals testify restored Can only hold someone length of possible sentence If still dangerous, can involuntary hospitalize with Baker Act Cannot force medication unless dangerous Medication Competency restoration groups Psychotherapy for mental illnesses

Criminal Homicide

Criminal homicide is not necessarily murder, as many accidental deaths fall into this category. In any criminal homicide case, the exact circumstances of the event, the mind-set, or mental state, of the perpetrator, and intent are considered in determining what criminal charges, if any, should be leveled. The most common forms of criminal homicide include murder and manslaughter. 1. Murder. -1st degree -2nd degree 2. Voluntary Manslaughter. 3. Involuntary Manslaughter.

Importance of Brown v. Board of Education in Forensic Psych

Demonstrated usefulness of psychology with Clark's social psychology experiments. Reversed "Plessy v. Ferguson (1986)" ruling. Brown v. board of education (1954) was a famous desegregation case that determined separation was not equal education after social psychologists demonstrated their experiments showing that children did not treat African American and Caucasian-looking dolls in the same way. This case reversed Plessy v. Ferguson (Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal"). This was important because the American Medical Association and APA passed resolutions that both groups were legitimate experts who could comment on social science (psychiatrists and psychologists?). It allowed psychologists to introduce evidence about the impact of discrimination on general or specific populations.

Excused

Excuse defenses are oriented toward the actor, rather than the criminal act. Even though the actions of the defendant were criminal, intentional and caused some level of harm to society, these defenses may exculpate criminal guilt because for some extenuating reason the defendant is found not to be responsible for his own actions. If the defendant was involuntarily drugged and, while intoxicated, injures another person, her behavior may be excused and exculpated. i) No mens rea because of mental illness ii) Insanity, competency issues, diminished capacity

Divisions of Court: Federal

Federal courts deal with cases regarding civil rights (ex: fighting discrimination). i) Federal (1) Trial Court: (a) Judges appointed by President and confirmed by Senate rule for life unless something happens (b) Hear factual cases (2) Appellate Court (a) Goes first to 3 judge panel, and then, if request en banc, it goes to all judges in that circuit (3) US Supreme Court (a) 9 US Supreme Justices - appointed by President, confirmed by senate, serve for life (b) Highest authority- no further appeals (c) Only deals with legal issues- no factual issues (d) Can decide not to take a case - Deny certiorari (e) Decisions are binding in all states in most cases

Fl standard of competency

Is the client competent to proceed: Does defendant know/appreciate the charges against him/her? Does the defendant know/appreciate the range and nature of the possible penalties? Does the defendant have a factual and rational knowledge of the adversary nature of the legal process? Is the defendant able to assist his/her attorney by disclosing pertinent facts about the charged behavior? Can the defendant manifest appropriate behavior in the courtroom? Is the defendant able to testify relevantly in his/her case? If not, what if any recommended treatment to restore competency. -Choice between hospitalization or -Community treatment

Justified

Justifications are defenses that focus primarily on the criminal offense that was committed by the defendant. A criminal offense may be justified if it in some way benefits society or upholds principles that society values highly. For example, assault and battery could be fully justifiable if those actions are shown to be in self defense. It is a fundamental value of society that everyone has a right to defend themselves if they come under attack, and so this behavior is in many situations justified.

Frye & Daubert Challenges: Kuhmo Standard & Federal Rules of Evidence

KUHMO: Expert Testimony- Trial judge has discretion to decide whether proposed testimony is relevant or reliable FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE: Frye and the Federal Rules of Evidence both do rely on the general acceptability to give the testimony reliability but the additions to the Federal Rules after Daubert added some of its provisions. Frye and Daubert are the standard in some states, while the *Federal Rules of Evidence are the standard in the Federal Courts* *** Remember the Daubert 6 criteria are only suggestions to assist the judge in making the determination of reliability.

CASE: Sell v. United States

Landmark decision in which the United States Supreme Court. Determined that drugs to make defendant competent to stand trial may be administered involuntarily under very limited circumstances.

Legislative vs. Case laws

Legislative laws are laws passed by the legislative branch of government (think Senators and Representatives) and is usually in the form of a statute or regulation. Legislative law is different than Common Law which is created by judges when they decide the cases before the court. Judges can interpret what legislative law means if there is a dispute about the meaning of a particular statute or Judges can declare a statute unconstitutional if it conflicts with the U.S. Constitution or the constitution of the state.

CASE: Miranda v. Arizona

Miranda was arrested at his home and taken in custody to a police station where he was identified by the complaining witness. He was then interrogated by two police officers for two hours, which resulted in a signed, written confession. At trial, the oral and written confessions were presented to the jury. Miranda was found guilty of kidnapping and rape and was sentenced to 20-30 years imprisonment on each count. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona held that Miranda's constitutional rights were not violated in obtaining the confession.

Bill of Rights

Protect's individual's rights

Downward Departure

Reduces the length of a jail/prison sentence

Divisions of Court: State

State courts deal with drug use, domestic violence, etc. Some state courts will deal with discrimination cases that involve personal injury. ii) State (divided into jurisdictions) (1) Trial Court Level: (a) Misdemeanor & felony criminal (b) Civil issues (c) Family issues (d) Also have separate branch that deals with juvenile issues (2) Appellate Court Level: If you don't like outcome at trial level, can go up to appellate level and appeal your case. Usually have 3 judges review the case to determine if case has legal errors (en banc). If appellate court finds in your favor but other side doesn't agree, they can go up to the state supreme court. (3) State Supreme Court Level: has the choice to take the case (granting certiorari) or not (if not, appellate decision stands). If they take the case, and rule in favor of other side, can go up to next group- federal court.

Sanity Tests

The "M'Naghten Rule" - Defendant either did not understand what he or she did, or failed to distinguish right from wrong, because of a "disease of mind." The "Irresistible Impulse" Test - As a result of a mental disease, defendant was unable to control his impulses, which led to a criminal act. The "Durham Rule" - Regardless of clinical diagnosis, defendant's "mental defect" resulted in a criminal act. The "Model Penal Code" Test for Legal Insanity - Because of a diagnosed mental defect, defendant either failed to understand the criminality of his acts, or was unable to act within the confines of the law.

aggravated murder

The term 'aggravated' means that the murder is surrounded by some other circumstances such as the victim being killed while another crime was being committed, the murderer having planned to kill the victim ahead of time, or the killing being committed along with rape or other atrocious felonies. Aggravated Murder: A murder made more serious by its violent circumstances, including: (if there are aggravating factors, person may be sentenced to death) (1) Killed someone or unlawfully terminated their pregnancy purposely and with planning in place (2) Killed someone or unlawfully terminated their pregnancy while committing, attempting to commit, or fleeing after committing kidnapping, rape, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated burglary, burglary, trespass in a habitation when person is present or likely to be present, terrorism, or escape. (3) Purposely killed someone under 13 (4) Purposely killed someone while in prison for another felony or while escaped from prison (5) Purposely killed a law officer while one of the following is true: (a) He or she was engaged in official duties (b) You specifically meant to kill a law enforcement officer

Florida - Sanity Test

Uses the M'Naghten Rule. The burden of proof is on the state.

First degree murder

also referred to as "capital murder," involves intent to kill, and premeditation. iii) 1st degree murder: unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated, meaning that it was committed after planning or "lying in wait" for the victim., or results from a vicious crime such as arson, rape, or armed robbery. Example: Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. Three days later, Dan waits behind a tree near Victor's front door. When Victor comes out of the house, Dan shoots and kills him.

Therapeutic jurisprudence

examines how the law and those who enact it may be helpful or harmful to people's wellbeing and mental health, and what alternatives there might be, including in specialist courts for particular problems. says that you should use the courts to help people who are mentally ill rather than harm them. Why criminalize them when they can't help in the behavior they engaged in?

Voluntary manslaughter

refers to a situation in which the perpetrator intentionally killed the victim, though he had no prior though or intent to kill. This might occur "in the heat of passion," such as in an unexpected circumstance that causes the perpetrator to suddenly become mentally or emotionally distressed. v) Voluntary manslaughter: An intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill, such as a killing that occurs in the "heat of passion." The circumstances leading to the killing must be the kind that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed. Example: Dan comes home to find his wife in bed with Victor. In the heat of the moment, Dan picks up a golf club from next to the bed and strikes Victor in the head, killing him instantly.