Psychology and Law Exam 2

1984 Insanity Defense reform act (IDRA)

"At the time of the commission of the act constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense Affirmative defense: required there be a presumption of sanity and that defendants prove by "clear ad convincing evidence" that they were insane at the time of the crime The volatile prong was dropped from the definition of insanity Experts were barred from giving ultimate issue testimony: experts still allowed to testify about defendants mental state at time of crime but jury decided whether the defendant was legally insane at time of crime

CST and Waiving right to attorney

"anyone who serves as their own attorney has a fool for a client" 1993: Long Island Railroad Massacre Killed 6 people injured 19 by shooting on a commuter train in long island. After being found CST Ferguson fired his attorneys and represented himself- helped to change the courts mind about CST and waiving a attorney He could not represent himself made crazy claims (1996, 96 counts against him, 1925 25 counts so not fair) Indiana v Edwards (2008) A higher level of competence that the one Dusky could be used to prevent mentally defendants from waiving their right to counsel Also a higher standard to plea guilty, but left undefined

Current Violent Crime Rates

"super predator" turned out to be a damaging myth: "as adolescents came increasingly to be feared as perpetrators of the most serious and violent crimes, the principles of rehabilitation that were essential to the juvenile court were largely abandoned. In actuality, violent crime rates have steadily dropped since the 1990s (ex. There was/is no "super predator") Dropped 44% from 1994-2001 Probation is the most common sentence imposed Males account for the majority of juvenile arrests (although the number of female defendants is rising slightly) Most common offenses are: theft, assault, drug, conduct related charges

Juror Characteristics and attitudes

#1 predictor of verdict is evidence So, does the selection based on juror traits/characteristics matter? Juror characteristics and verdict prediction Associations are modest are unreliable - 5 to 14% of the variance (Penrod, 1991) Ex. Gender Modesty associated personality tendencies Locus of control Belief in a just world Authoritarianism

The M'Naghten Rule

1843- Daniel M'Naghten was found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) for shooting the Prime Minister's secretary M'Naghten Rule (aka Cognitive Test) Defendants are presumed sane and responsible for their crime At the moment of the crime, the accused must have been laboring "under defect of reason" or "from disease of the mind" The defendant "did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or, if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong" Summary: For a defendant to be found NGRI under M'Naghten, he had to be suffering from a mental illness that affected his ability to understand what he was doing was wrong In the centuries since M'Naghten it has been adapted to American law Some states have made additional elements to what qualifies as insanity Irresistible impulse: inability to control one's behavior The reasoning powers were so fat dethroned by his diseased mental condition as to deprive him of willpower to resist the insane impulse to perpetrate the deed, though knowing it to be wrong (Smith v United States 1954) Policemen at the Elbow Test (a way of determining if it is truly an "irresistible impulse")

The Durham Case

1951 Monte Durham, a career criminal, was arrested for B&E in DC. Despite a history of mental illness was not allowed to plead insanity by the trial judge 1954 Judge Bazelone threw out the conviction and ordered a new trial. Judge Bazelon concluded that M'Naghten was obsolete and misguided and so he came up with a new standard for insanity Durham Standard/Product test: "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect" Was very controversial Mental health professionals liked it/ legal professionals did not 18 years after being developed it was overturned in United states v Brawner (1972) But still used in New Hampshire In response to the dissatisfaction with both M'Naghten and Durham, the American Law Institute (ALI) proposed a new revised standard ALI standard: "a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct, as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law Has been adopted by 26 states and a modified version has been adopted by the federal courts

Case example Jana

4 years old Mother (Kenya) accused of killing Jana's great grandmother All were living in the same house with other family members as well Only the three of them were at home at the time of the alleged event First interviewed by police: No rapport building, asked if someone got hurt (v suggestive), got bad information (reports that weren't accurate) then Dr. Thomas Lyon: Rapport building asking about last birthday, lots of cues and follow up questions, and Jana gave a lot more information

8 factors that must be considered (Kent v US) In re Gault (1967)

8 Factors o The seriousness of the alleged offense to the community and whther the protection of the community requires waiver o Whether the alleged offense was against persons or against property o The prosecutorial merit of the complaint (ie the strength of the evidence) o The desirability of trial and disposition of the entire offense in one court when the juvenile's association in the alleged offense are adults who will be charged with a crime o The sophistication and maturity of the juvenile o The record and previous history of the juvenile o The prospects for adequate protection of the public and the likelihood of reasonable rehabilitation of the juvenile In re Gault (1967) 15 year old boy making prank calls, taken into custody without telling the mom, didn't tell her anything, basically every right for adult was not there. He got 6 years and not allowed to appeal. Mom called for habeus corpus, hearing to get him back, went to SC and they found this was unconstitutional. Extended the procedural safeguards put in place in Kent v United States for all juveniles in any delinquency proceeding Supreme Court ruled Gault's 6th amendment rights were violated, therefore ruling that juveniles did not have the following rights • Right to an attorney • Right to be notified of the charges against you • Right to remain silent • Right to confront your accuser

Scientific jury selection 1972 "Harrisburg Seven"

800 residents surveyed Correlations examined between demographic characteristics and beliefs related to the trial Profiles were developed for potential jurors "Pro prosecution" (vote guilty): Republican business man who identified as Presbyterian, Methodist, or fundamentalist Christian "Pro defense" (acquit): female democrat with no religious preference and a white collar or skilled blue collar job Cant know for sure if it worked But trial ended in a hung jury 10 voted for acquittal 2 for conviction

Chapter 6 Jury Selection Trial by Jury

A large amount of social science research has been dedicated to the process of jury selection and jury decision making Although we have the right to a trial by jury- most cases do not result in a jury trial Plea bargains: by far the majority of criminal convictions Bench trials: 4.3% of felony cases, trial where the judge decides, defendant needs to submit request in writing Jury trials: 2.7% Civil trials: only 3% go to jury trial (97% are resolved by the court and parties before going to trial

What can we do?

After decades of research explored conditions under which children are at high risk to give false reports during investigations, researchers attempted to alleviate the problem Research began to focus on the effective interviewing techniques to use in the field Solution: Early narrative interview (NICHD Protocol, Ten step protocol) o Before child regrets disclosing o Before other pressure child o Before memory fades o Suggestive influence can be considered motivation for allegation

Characteristics of Incompetent Defendants

Approximately 25% of defendants referred for an evaluation are deemed incompetent Those judged incompetent tend to be: o Unemployed o Unmarried o Low intelligence o History of drug abuse o History of mental illness o Current, obvious symptoms of mental illness DO NOT HAVE to have any of these, and one of these does not automatically deem you incompetent Common mental health diagnoses associated with incompetency -Psychotic illnesses (schizophrenia) -Severe affective disorders (bipolar) -Intellectual disability (developmental delay) Remember, these characteristics being present do not mean a defendant is incompetent They must cause a deficit in the aforementioned legal capacities Ex. Russell Weston: "The capital shooter": went into a capital building and killed security guard, senate members, world being taken over by Black Hiva and cannibals and thought the prosecutor/jurors were infected by this disease too

Decision rule

Around the same time, the supreme court began allowing non-unanimous verdicts As long as the split is as large as 9-3 In 6 person jury- always has to be unanimous Currently, 26 states require unanimity in misdemeanor verdicts 44 states require unanimity in criminal felony verdicts All states require unanimity in capital murder trials Like jury size, the requirement of unanimity changes deliberation dynamic Saks found that juries that are required to reach a unanimous verdict Deliberate longer (because they do not stop as soon as 9-3 is attained) More likely to hang Hastie, Penrod, and Pennington (1998) found majority juries Took earlier votes and spent more time voting/less time considering evidence Exerted more normative pressure Jurors wer left feeling less certain of their decision Jurors had less positive feelings about each other

Juvenile Offenders Juvenile delinquency

Behavior that is a violation of criminal law but is committed by individuals who have not yet become adults. Definition of juvenile varies by state Offenses vary Status offenses: illegal acts only because of the age of the person • Curfew • Underage possession of alcohol, tobacco, etc • Truancy • Incorrigibility (don't listen to legal guardian on a regular basis) • Running away

Risk developmental pathways

Both models have been used to describe antisocial behavior in males and females o But life course persistent criminal behavior is extremely rare for females o 10 to 1 males, but 100 to 1 for females o females tend to display adolescent limited delinquent behaviors Delinquent behaviors of the adolescent limited and life course persistent offenders may not be substantively different Both groups can be involved in the same range of criminal activity, including violent offenses The difference: the delinquent behavior of life course offenders can be predicted by early onset developmental and behavioral problems

Trial Consultants

Can be hired by either side to (but typically by defense) employ data driven approach both before and during trial Use mock juries to: -Uncover relationships between juror characteristics and responses to the evidence- guides peremptory challenges -Design questions for voir dire, Supplemental juror questionnaires -Get a clear sense of the strengths and weaknesses of the case Does trial consulting work?- UNCLEAR Maybe with less skilled attorneys Maybe when cases are close and evidence is ambiguous Questions Is trial consulting ethical? buying way out of justice system maybe? But should be able to defend themselves to best of ability Should the state provide a trial consultant for one side if the other side has hired their own consultant?

Response to rising crime rates: waiver to adult court

Can happen 3 ways o Judicial waiver: judge transfers youth following a hearing in which it is established the youth satisfies the criteria established in Kent v United States Most popular method 45 states and the district of Columbia allow judicial waiver over certain cases o Automatic waiver/ statutory exclusion: transfer is automatic if youth is charged with certain offenses, such as murder or other serious offenses (ex. Certain offenses are excluded from juvenile court) 28 states have statutory exclusions some states restrict this to defendants who are 16 or 17 but many do not have age limits o Prosecutor direct file/ concurrent jurisdiction: prosecutor decides whether to try the juvenile as an adult or not Prosecutor does not have to meet standards in Kent Used in 15 states There has been an increase in the amount of cases transferred to adult court One recent estimate shows that about 2000 youth are incarcerated in adult prisons There has been a shift away from "rehabilitation" to a belief that youth need to be held accountable for their actions A modern juvenile justice philosophy • Some youth are too violent to be managed in juvenile justice system • Some youth cannot be rehabilitated • A punishment oriented approach with harsher sentences provides better protection for the public

Chapter 11 Child Victims and Witnesses Children as victims and witnesses History of Child witnesses Historical context of Children's eyewitness testimony 1980s

Children as victims and witnesses Sexual abuse, physical abuse, domestic violence, and custody disputes Why not cases in general? Adults thought to be superior Children only interviewed/testify when it is necessary History of Child witnesses Early 1900s negative attitudes 1970s interest in eyewitness testimony 1980s several high profile cases Historical context of Children's eyewitness testimony 1980s Growing awareness of child maltreatment and a desire to see it dealt with aggressively Barriers to children's legal participation were removed, no corroborative evidence requirements Several highly publicized controversial daycare child sexual abuse cases

Beyond the interview: children in court Hearsay testimony

Children in court: Children's testimony can be crucial to the prosecution of CSA offenders However, testifying can be highly stressful experience for young children High levels of stress can negatively impact children's credibility and their ability to communicate Certain techniques/reforms have been identified to help alleviate children's stress when testifying Hearsay testimony: Hearsay: info received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate Testifying about what someone else said outside court Does not allow for cross examination May be inaccurate Hearsay testimony is usually inadmissible (some exceptions) Crawfrod v Washington (2004): testimonial and unavailable for cross examination. Mr crawfard killed Mr lee, mrs crawfard said she didn't see a knife, but he claimed self defense, and they were trying to make her statement come in as heresay, but it cant come in bc she had spousal privilege. SO But there are some exceptions when it comes to children Ex. Ohio v Clark: exception. supreme court ruled in favor and cited Dr. Lyon's brief, children under 8 who make a claim to a teacher can't be counted as testimonial bc they don't know that it will go to court. The testimony from the teacher about the child's claim can be used as evidence

Competence in the Legal System

Competence: whether an individual has sufficient present ability to perform necessary personal or legal functions Several different types of legal competency o Competency to waive Miranda Rights o Competency to confess o Competency to make treatment decisions o Competency to execute a will or contract o Competency to take care of one's finances o Competency to stand trial Competency to stand trial (CST): the ability to participate adequately in criminal proceedings and to aid in one's own defense For the legal system to work, a defendant needs to be able to make decisions about key aspects of their defense o Whether to plead guilty o Whether to waive a trial by jury o Whether to testify o Whether to accept a plea bargain offered by the prosecution

History of Jury Selection

Constitution (article 3): "the trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury" Bill of rights: Fifth amendment: Indictment by grand jury (jury of inquiry: whether if prosecution has a strong enough case to even bring it to trial), jury's decision of "not guilty" is final word- "double jeopardy" Sixth amendment: "the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed" Seventh amendment: right to jury in most civil cases

Allegation phase

Continue the strategy utilized during rapport building: open ended prompts, cued invitations, and wh questions Recommended disclosure questions Now that I know you a little better, tell me why you came to talk to me. . (50% of the time it works to get them to open up. If don't say, it's really important that you tell me why it happened) I heard you talked with a police officer, tell me what you talked about Is your mom worried about something happened to you? Tell me what they are worried about I heard that someone might have bothered you. Tell me everything about that Certain types of forensically relevant info has proven to be especially difficult for interviewers to obtain from young witnesses even with the structured protocols Penetration Inside v outside. Recommendations: what were his hands doing? What did you feel? How did it feel when you went to the bathroom? Clothing placement On v Off. Recommendations: where were your clothes, what happened to them Time and Number When and how many times? Recommendations: obtain time and number info from other contextual details, did it happen once or more than once

Jury Pool Exemptions

Current "jury pool": Primary source is voter registration lists Some states also compile lists of licensed drivers and telephone directories Already potential underrepresentation in your pool Venire: "cause to come", "come when called" Group of potential jurors that actually show up for jury duty Approximately 20% of those summoned do not show up Range in size (typically between 30-100 people) Exemptions Used to be several ways to get "automatic exemption" Non English speaker, blind, police officer, etc "undue hardship or extreme inconvenience: Vague category created to accommodate a vast number of excuses for avoiding jury service Also, much harder to qualify for than it once was (used to be stay at home mom, family of police officer) Hardship to the local community One day trial/one day service Trials typically last for one week Ex. Only doctor in a small town

Scientific jury selection 1995- OJ Simpson Trial

Defense relied heavily on a trial consultant Saw the case as a case about race Prosecution dismissed their jury consultant and relied on intuition Saw the case as a domestic violence case Jury consultants on both sides used information collected from individual and group data Conclusion: African American women would be the group least likely to convict Simpson Additional information uncovered from the pretrial interviews: African American females would excuse the physical abuse; see prosecutor as a "castrating bitch" African American jurors were significantly less trusting in the LAPD More educated jurors would question the suggestion that police "planted" evidence Final Jury composed of: 8 African American women, 2 White women, 1 black man, 1 Latino man, only 2 were college graduates, 5 reported they personally had negative experiences with a police officer Results: "I didn't understand the DNA stuff at all. To me, it was just a waste of time, It was way out there and carried absolutely no weight with me" Trial took 8 months, jury came back with not guilty verdict in less than 4 hours DO you think scientific research (defense) or intuition (prosecution) was the better strategy? Possible that these cases are the result of better attorneys using more resources Could be certain cases rare more susceptible on juror characteristics influence interpretation of evidence. BETTER lawyers use better data not intuition

Malingering

Deliberate feigning or gross exaggeration physical or psychological symptoms in order to gain positive outcome Some estimate that about 15% of defendants who are evaluated for CST are feigning impairment In order to combat this issue, instruments have been developed to detect malingering: -Inventory of Legal Knowledge -Evaluation of competency to stand trial- revised (ECST-R) Only FAI that contains a malingering scale

Adolescent limited offenders:

Do not begin offending until their teen years Do not typically demonstrate the early childhood antisocial and behavioral problems "Their delinquent activity emerges alongside puberty, when otherwise healthy youngsters experience dysphoria during the relatively role less years between their biological maturation and their access to mature privileges and responsibility. A period known as the "maturity gap" Delinquent behavior is used to Establish autonomy from parents Gain acceptance from peers This type of offending is far more common and less pathological than life-course persistent offending

The dusky standard

Dusky v United States (1960) Kidnapped a girl, so two friends could rape her, then drove them back, did evaluation for competency, but judge said he was competent, and then convicted for 45 years. Appealed to supreme court and decided he wasn't competent, but retried and sentenced for 20 years "It is not enough to find that the 'defendant' is oriented to time and place and has some recollection of events but that the 'test must be whether he has sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him" BASICALLY, must be competent at the present time, help attorney, and understand the proceedings against him CST does not take into account the state of mind at the time of the crime (that is "insanity") Adjudicative Competence (Bonnie, 1993) o Foundational competence o Decisional competence

More on CST evaluations How and who conducts evaluations

Evaluations are typically conducted by clinical psychologists and other mental health professionals (many are forensic psychologists) Often more than one person will provide an evaluation (to take majority opinion) Evaluators interview the defendant, conduct tests, review defendants history, and then write a report Sometimes evaluator will testify regarding competence Evaluations can be conducted: Outpatient: occur outside mental institutions, Majority of Assessments. Inpatient: involve holding defendant in a mental institution for a period usually ranging from a few weeks to several months (observation, more in depth). Collateral sources of information: info from nurses, other people working at facility, along with Dr. CST evaluations focus largely on the mental health of defendant Recently they have begun to include trial related deficits CST evaluations seem to have low inter-rater reliability Gowensmith, murrie, and boccaccinni (2012) only 71% agreement among 3 evaluators (N=216) Rare for judges to reject the conclusion of the evaluator- especially If the defendant is found incompetent Judges agree wth evaluator 80% of the time (Zapf et al 2014, Warren et al 2006)

CST Process

Even if clients do not raise competency issue, attorneys are ethically bound to tell the judge if they believe a defendant is incompetent Usually the defense attorney (but prosecutors can raise the issue too) It has been estimated that anywhere between 30,000-60,000 defendants are evaluated each year Attorneys have doubts about competency in about 10% of their cases The issue of competency is formally raised in only about 5% of these cases About 5 out every 100 defendants Issue of competency is typically raised at pretrial hearing, but can be raised at any time If you have Bona fide doubt should raise it ("reasonable doubt"): even lower standard than preponderance of the evidence

Risk factors

Exercise What do you think might increase or decrease a child's potential for becoming a juvenile offender? Developmental pathways Several theories have been developed to explain delinquent behavior One theory is that there are certain developmental pathways that lead to deviant behavior Moffit's Models (Life Course Persistent vs Adolescent- limited offenders) Psychosocial maturity Brain development Interpersonal maturity levels

Fundamentals elements of CST

Flexible Standard: Should functions that a defendant needs to perform in a trial effect the threshold for competence More complicated trial = higher standard for CST Ex. Amnesia can be used on a case by case basis Presumption of CST: Defendants are presumed to be competent unless proven incompetent Standard for CST is "preponderance of the evidence (POE)" 51% certain the defendant is incompetent

Foundational Competence Decisional Competence

Foundational Competence: A basic understanding of the legal system and the ability to provide your attorney with information Three requirements The ability to understand the basic elements of the adversary system (prosecutor, judge, jury) The ability to inform their attorney of information relevant to the case The ability to understand their situation as a criminal defendant Decisional Competence: Capacity to make informed, independent, decisions Four requirements The ability to understand information relevant to the decisions they must make (pleading guilty, waiving a jury trial) The ability to think rationally about alternatives involved in the decisions The ability to appreciate decisions that need to be made in their best interest The ability to make a choice among the available defense strategies

CST and pleading guilty

Guilty plea must be given knowing, voluntary, and intelligent Defendant must understand rights that are forfeited: o Trial by jury o Right to remain silent o Right to an appeal o Right to confront one's accusers Godinez v Moran (1993) Separate psychological evaluations of competency to plead guilty or competency to waive an attorney are not required once a defendant has been found CST If you're competent at first trial, you can do all these things

Life course persistent offenders

Have conduct problems that begin in early childhood and persist into adulthood Cognitive deficits o Uncontrolled temperament o Delayed motor development by age 3 o Low verbal ability o Attention deficit and hyperactive problems o Neuropsychological impairments Social deficits o Engage in bullying behavior in elementary school o Difficulties in interpersonal peer relations o Extremely high risk for later delinquent and adult criminal behavior Accounts for a small proportion of delinquent offenders (less than 10%)

Hearsay testimony what do jurors think?

If children's report is allowed through an adult witness, it is important to consider how jurors interpret this presentation Research suggests that adults witnesses who are reporting children's testimony are seen as more o Consistent o Complete/detailed o Accurate o Credible Suggesting that jurors do not see children's inability to testify as an indicator of deceptions Research also suggests that jurors looked for "clues" based on child witness demeanor to judge honesty: Uncertain vs lying vs nervous? These behaviors they look for could also show up if the child is nervous Not emotional enough: when kids talk about really serious things they don't show a lot of emotion, don't really sound upset

Violent Crime Rates

In the mid 1980s and 1990s there was a surge in violent crime committed by juveniles- which resulted in changes in the juvenile court system Led to increase in public fears Juvenile super predator: coined by John Dilulio "Kids that have absolutely no respect for human life and no sense of the future...these are stone cold predators!" Criminologists predicted that the number of juvenile offenders in custody would increase 3 fold by 2010 Calls for more punitive sanctions for juveniles, led to an increase in transfers to adult court

The ten-step interview (adapted version of NICHD protocol for CA- Thomas Lyon)

Instructions. rapport building, allegation phase Instructions Don't know instruction: what is my dog's name? Do you have a dog? Don't understand: what is your gender? Are you a boy or girl? You're wrong: You are 30 years old. How old are you? Ignorant interviewer: I don't know what happened to you, I won't be able to tell you the answers to my questions Promise to tell the truth: do you promise that you will tell me the truth? Rapport Building Goal of rapport building To make the child comfortable and build open communication between the child and interviewer To have the child practice giving as much info as possible when the interviewer provides open ended prompts. Matthew video, mom murdered by dad Research has shown that children (especially 9 years and older) who engage in rapport building provide significantly more details during their disclosures 1. Use open ended questions to practice developing a narrative (tell me about things you like to do) 2. The follow up the information child gave you using "cued invitations" (You said x, tell me more about x, what happened next) 3. After exhausting cued initiations, you can utilize WH- questions about actions, causes, reactions are good

Background on Insanity Three important cases for insanity

It is not enough to commit a criminal act (actus reas) one also must possess a guilty mind (mens rea)- the awareness of the wrongfulness of the criminal conduct 14th-16th century England: "good from evil" test: moral failing unable to recognize good from evil 1724 Rex v Arnold: "wild beast Test" acquit the defendant of wounding a British lord in an assassination attempt if they found him to be 'totally deprived in understanding" Became less of a moral failing and more of a cognitive failing (deficiency involving understanding and memory). Three important cases for insanity • 1843 M'Naughten's case • 1954 Durham v United States • 1984 United States v Hinckley

Majority Influence

It is not typically an individual that has the strongest influence on a jury's decision,but rather the majority Kalven & Zeisel (1966) 215 juries began with a clear majority, 209 reached a verdict supported by that majority Majorities bring strong social pressure to bear on jurors holding the minority opinion (ex. No one spoke) Majority often has the more persuasive arguments at its disposal Leniency bias If jury is evenly split or close to in a criminal trial, the likely outcome will be "not guilty" Likely due to the high burden of proof Those arguing for acquittal must only raise reasonable doubt Those arguing for conviction must remove nearly all doubt

Restoration of competency

Jackson v Indiana (1972): limited the period of confinement to the time necessary to determine if the defendant could be restored to competence in the foreseeable future Prior, defendant could be held indefinitely Most states now limit confinement to somewhere between 4-18 months. If defendant is still incompetent, several extensions may be granted Civil commitment- must be "gravely disabled" or "imminently dangerous to self or others". Charges are suspended or dismissed, can be reinstated (usually for the most serious crimes) if competency is restored Restoration of Competency often includes administration of antipsychotic medication. Reduce severity and frequency of hallucinations and delusions experiences by those suffering severe mental illness BUT, do not work in 25% of patients And significant side effects are common in the typical medications given -Muscle tremors -Muscle rigidity -Tardive dyskinesia: involuntary muscle movements

Chapter 9 The insanity defense Jeffrey Dahmer *The arguments

Jeffrey Dahmer 1991 Jeffrey Dahmer was tried for the murder of 15 young men in Milwaukee Dahmer was accused of horrific crimes that included mutilation, cannibalism, and necrophilia Dahmer pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity Pay close attention to the arguments by the prosecution and the defense about the meaning of "insanity" *The arguments •What did the prosecution say about Dahmer's mental state? •What did the defense say about Dahmer's mental status? •Which side do you think is right and why?

The Hinckley Case

John Hinckley Jr became obsessed with Taxi Driver and main star Jodi Foster, went to Yale to follow and stalk her and in his delusional attempt to win her love, he tried to reenact a text driver scene by trying to assassinate President Reagan. He shot and wounded 4 people including the president. Public outrage led to "insanity" standards being examined yet again. He was obviously guilty yet able to avoid prison from high price lawyers and psych who used "neurolaw" One major factor in Hinckley was the burden of proof The burden was on the prosecution to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) Hinckley sane RATHER than on the defense to prove him insane In response, new legislation was developed, the ALI Standard was largely abandoned Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) slightly retooled version of M'Naghten

What is a jury?

Jurors are regarded as "fact finders" Job is to determine what really happened Can only use evidence introduced at trial Follow the laws instructed by the judge Jury Nullification: refers to jurors voting or cancelling a law they are instructed to apply by rendering a verdict inconsistent with that law but in agreement with their own sense of justice Ex. Dr. Jack Kevorkian: Dr. went to trial for murder for assisted suicide, but was acquitted by juries bc he was doing something morally right, but eventually got convicted for doing one on tv Cannot be punished or questioned for their verdict

Inadmissible Evidence

Jurors are told to ignore all types of inadmissible evidence Can they unhear the evidence? Research suggest no- that often they still consider the evidence Why? •Ironic process: when we make an effort not to think of something we think about it more •Reactance theory: people are motivated to maintain their freedom, therefore if they are told not to do something, they will feel their freedom is being threatened, and do it anyway •Commonsense approach to justice: if they think it will help them reach a conclusion then they will use it Factors that influence whether jurors will consider inadmissible evidence: Relevance to the case (help them make a decision) Explanation by judge (on why not to use it, if good reason more likely to not use it)

Similarity Leniency Hypothesis

Jurors who are similar to the defendant will empathize and identify with the defendant and thus be less likely to convict Research shows that relation is really more complicated Kerr, Hymes, Anderson, and Weathers (1995) Weak or moderately convincing evidence and jury is composed of majority same race- we give similar defendants benefit of the doubt BUT, boomerang effect: when evidence is strong, and similar jurors are in the minority, similar jurors were harsher on defendants than dissimilar jurors. May help to distance themselves from the defendant

Brain development

Key decision making areas of the brain (ie the frontal lobe executive function) have not reached adult maturity Typically not fully developed until the early twenties (Giedd et al 1999) As these key areas develop adolescents become Better problem solvers Less influenced by peers Less impulsive More sophisticated in the strategies they use to make decisions Roper v Simmons (2005) Death penalty for youth offenders is unconstitutional APA brief cited research about brain development

Child suggestibility research Leichtman and Ceci (1995) Sam Stone Study *Bruck, Ceci, Francoeur, and Barr (1995) Innoculation Study

Leichtman and Ceci (1995) Sam Stone Study 176 3-6 year olds, "sam stone" visited their classroom and read them a story and than left 4 experimental conditions before/during repeated interviews • Control • Stereotype: children were given previsit information about Sam being clumsy • Suggestion: interview given to children contained suggestive and misleading questions • Stereotype and Suggestion Results suggested: Control condition gave accurate reports about Sam stones visit Stereotype condition resulted in moderate amount of errors Suggestion condition resulted in significant amount of errors consistent with suggestion Stereotype and suggestion made the highest level of false reports Conclusion: young children are susceptible to false reports if prior beliefs or suggestive questioning exists Bruck, Ceci, Francoeur, and Barr (1995) Innoculation Study 4 and 5 year olds experienced doctor ordered innoculations Following a delay children were interviewed 4 times over a 2 week period In first three interviews, ½ of children were exposed to misinformation and suggestive comments minimizing the pain of the shot In fourth interview all children were asked to recall what had happened during their visit with no misinformation or suggestion Results suggest: Children who were in the suggestive condition reported significantly less pain and crying than children in the control condition Authors concluded: these results challenge the view that suggestibility effects are confined to peripheral, neutral, and non meaningful stimuli Do you agree?

Locus of control Belief in a just world Authoritarianism

Locus of control How people tend to explain what happens to them Internal locus of control: outcomes in life due to own abilities or efforts External locus of control: Outcomes in life due to outside forces, ex. "lucky" Belief in a just world "people get what they deserve and deserve what they get" People who strongly believe in a just world tend to be more "victim blaming" (why did she wear that/walk alone/act that way) It's a way of controlling anxiety about being a potential victim Authoritarianism People with "authoritarian personalities" tend to: -Have conventional values -Rigid beliefs -Intolerance of weakness -Identify with and submit to authority figures -Are suspicious of and punitive toward people who violate rules/establishes norms More likely to convict and are more punitive in sentencing unless the defendant is a police officer

*Children are different from adults

Memory o Memory capacity expands with age o Lack event knowledge, scripts Language and communication o More limited vocabularies o Interpret words more restrictedly/concrete o We learn how to tell stories Conceptual understanding o Time/frequency o Fantasy vs reality Social emotional factors at play o Authority dynamic: more willing to please o Used to interactions where the adult knows the answer

CST Evaluations

No gold standard for CST Evaluations Most assessments are general psychology tests -Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2nd Ed. (MMPI-2): general measure of psychopathy based on 567 true/false questions -Use this test to detect mental illness then use it for how mental illness will affect ability to understand legal issues -Do not address legal questions at the heart of competency Forensic Assessment Instruments (FAIs): psychology tests specific to legal issues Growing area of forensic and clinical psychology Ex. Competency Screening Test 22 "sentence completion" questions ex. If the jury finds me guilty, I will _____________ Score: 0 (incompetent), 1 (uncertain competence), 2 (competent) Limitations: need to be highly trained to score one of these and very subjective to scoring Later developed a more detailed approach- Competency Assessment Instrument (CAI)

Closed circuit tv (CC-TV)

Not used that often Children's testimony is given in a separate room and broadcast live to the courtroom. Benefit over hearsay, cross examination is allowed Maryland v Craig (1990)- supreme court ruled that CC-TV testimony is allowable if a child is likely to experience "significant emotional trauma" by being in the presence of the defendant Ruled that it does not violate the 6th amendment right to confront accuser because 1. Child can be cross examined and 2. Jury can observe child's demeanor Performance and juror perceptions Research finds that children give more accurate testimony with testifying via CCTV It has been shown to reduce children's stress/anxiety Children appear more confident, consistent BUT surprisingly this may work against children! Children appear less credible, attractive, intelligent, honest

Overview of Trial

Opening statements Prosecution goes first- they bear the "burden of proof" Criminal cases: beyond a reasonable doubt: approximately more than 90% certain Civil cases: preponderance of the evidence: approximately more than the 50% certain Direct examination Cross examination Re direct examination Closing arguments

Alternative to NGRI

Other attempts to "fix" the insanity issue have included giving jurors alternative verdict options Guilty but mentally ill (GBMI): Defendants are found guilty for their crime, and sentences to prison for a period consistent with the verdict. BUT they received treatment for their mental health issues while in prison (or transferred to a secure psychiatric facility) Permitted in 20 states Mens Rea Defenses: Can claim "diminished capacity" Only applicable for certain crimes that require a specific mental state Prosecution bears the burden (Beyond a reasonable doubt) Defendant can not be found guilty or found guilty of a charge with a mens rea standard

Pretrial Publicity

Pretrial publicity often contains information that is inadmissible as evidence during trial Research suggests pretrial publicity does have an effect -Those exposed are more likely to assume guilt Especially if coverage was emotional and on television (as opposed to print media) -Can misremember publicity as evidence that was presented at trial -Judges instructions do not help Voir Dire is designed to eliminate jurors who have preconceived notions about a defendant, other solutions include: Change of venue: has to be requested by defendant Postpone trial: also has to be requested by defendant

Jury instructions

Prior to deliberations, the judge typically reads instructions to the jury These often include the charges to be considered and the laws that need to be followed- instructions should be discussed in deliberations But, Judges almost never clarify instructions Examples are rarely given Often the instructions include large amounts of legal jargon and technical language Attempts have been made to make reforms to judges' instructions: Rewritten for clarity Instructions deliberately written for clarity enhance jurors understanding of legal concepts (Brewer et al, 2002; 2004) Order of presentation Preinstructions read to jurors before the trial begins Helps to scaffold the evidence Smith (1991) found that when instructions were given lead to differences in the evaluation of evidence Waiting to tell jurors about the presumption of innocence may be "too little, too late"

Public perceptions vs reality of NGRI

Public perception A large number of defendants use NGRI Most defendants who use NGRI are acquitted by juries who are too gullible Defendants found NGRI are released back into society shortly after trial Persons found insane are extremely dangerous Reality Used in less than 1% of felony cases Fails about 75% of the time End up spending equal or longer time in custody Often not used in cases resulting in victim death

Attorney Strategies

Purpose is to create an impartial jury But in reality the attorneys are stacking the jury Attorneys are attempting to identify jurors who will most favorable to their side There are many different strategies attorneys utilize for identifying optimal jurors Stereotypes Race, job, political assumptions, etc -"women are splendid jurors for the prosecution in rape cases or baby cases, yuppies are the worst jurors: they fear crime, love property, and haven't suffered enough to be sympathetic" -Never take a wealthy man on a jury. He will convict, unless the defendant is accused of violating the anti trust law, selling worthless stocks or bonds or something of that kind" Are there personality traits that will predict your verdict? Questionnaires: pre trial, try to identify biases in questions Social media analysis: stalking social media to see what you're like Behavior/impression during voir dire: very competent/outgoing and their side, they'll want you and if you're weak don't care most likely won't sway a jury

Questions remained *Do we need child witnesses?

Questions remained In the wake of these and other high profile cases, research began to examine children's eyewitness testimony Do we even need children to testify? How much do we know about child sexual abuse? What went so wrong Can children be eyewitnesses? If so, under what conditions? Do we need child witnesses? Estimates suggest 6% of population experiences child abuse (CSA; Finkelhorn et al 1997) Over 1000 CSA Cases filed in LA each year Most important evidence is often child's report* -Lack of physical evidence -Lack of eyewitnesses

Why OJ Won

Questions to consider while watching? o What are your reactions to the case and the information presented? o How did the prosecution try and select jurors that might help their case? o How did the defense try and select jurors that might help their case? o How did the jury change the direction of the case?

Her dog

Reilly, 9 years old mini dolgen doodle

How much do we know about CSA?

Relationship to perpetrator (Sas and Cunningham 1995) Rarely is the perpetrator of CSA a stranger to the victim 8%) 92% of the time the child knows the perpetrator 1/3 of perpetrators were family members 1/3 of children have known the perpetrator their entire life Over half were in positions of authority or trust over child ex. Teachers, coaches, caregivers Grooming (Elliot et al 1995) Overwhelming majority of offenders stated they coerced the child by carefully testing the child's reaction to sexual activity 19% used physical force whereas the remaining perpetrators used • Persuasion • Talking about sex • Accidental touch as a ploy • Bribery • Gifts However if the child resisted, 39% were prepared to use threats or violence 2/3 of perpetrators report abusing their victims repeatedly What do threats look like? o Emphasis of loss of positive, told perp will get in trouble, threats that child will receive blame, physical harm to others When asked about their fears of getting caught (conte et al 1989) In general, no. I selected my victims that I thought wouldn't report me Yes this would be a primary part of my strategy... I went after the victims that had a low potential for telling someone Victim selection (conte et al 1989) Quiet/withdrawn, youngest, felt picked on by siblings/friends, liked attention, trusting/unlikely to fight lead to vulnerable targets

Can attorneys identify bias? Zeisel and Diamond (1978) Olczak, Kaplan, and Penrod (1991) Johnson and Haney (1994)

Research has examined how attorneys are at identifying potential jurors who would vote against them Zeisel and Diamond (1978) Excuses jurors composed a "shadow jury" Attorneys were rated on a scale of 0 (as many good challenges as bad challenges)- 100 (every juror who would ave voted against was excused) Prosecution- average score was 0.5 Defense- average score was 17 However, there are individual differences, some attorneys scored as high as 62 Olczak, Kaplan, and Penrod (1991) Lawyers, law students, college students Each were given a list of juror characteristics and were aksed to rate them as favorable vs not favorable for either prosecution or defense No significiant differenct between groups on the ability to identify jurors with potential bias or at picking favorable jurors Johnson and Haney (1994) Examined the voir dire process of 4 criminal trials Found that each side did tend to excuse jurors who were biased against them However, several biased jurors made it through voir dire As a result, the final juries were not less bias then the first 12 jurors questioned or a randomly selected group

Riggins v Nevada (1992) Washington v Harper (1990) Sell v United States (2003)

Riggins v Nevada (1992): Defendant was medicated and restored to competency Requested to suspend medication use during trial Claimed he was unable to assist in his defense and he wanted the jury to see him in the state he was in when he committed the crime. Aspects of his defense were taken away when he was forced to take the medicine Judge rejected request- Riggins was found guilty and sentenced to death Supreme Court ruled this deprived him of due process Washington v Harper (1990): Convicted criminals have fewer protections from forcible medication than an individual who is alleged to have committed a crime Can be forcible medicated if: -It is in the medical interest of the prisoner (as deemed by a neutral medical professional -Medication is necessary given the legitimate needs of the institutional confinement Sell v United States (2003): Supreme court ruled that a defendant who is not a danger to himself or others could be forcibly medicated if and only if: -Such treatment was medically appropriate -Treatment was unlikely to have side effects that would undermine the trial fairness -Such treatment was necessary to further a significant government interest (can't refuse meds to avoid going to trial) BUT, the court stated that forcibly medicated should be utilized when all other options have been exhausted (ex. Appointment of a substitute decision maker) If the defendant is a danger to himself or others, less strict grounds are necessary for forcible medication

Rudy and Goodman (1991) Pezdek and Roe (1995) Memory for Touch

Rudy and Goodman (1991) Pairs of children (4 and 7 year olds) engages in a play session in a trailer One child engaged in play while the other observed 10-22 days later both children were interviewed about the play session Children were given open ended questions as well as direct and suggestive questions including questions that suggested abusive acts Results found There were age effects: older children provided less neutral commission errors about the pay session But regardless of age, children made almost no commission errors to false suggestion about actions relevant to child abuse allegations Conclusion: although children can be misled about neutral information, they are resistant to suggestion about abuse related information Pezdek and Roe (1995) Memory for Touch 160 4 and 10 year olds, 25 minute play session during which children were "touched" in a specific way or not touched Then children were provided with information suggesting: no touch, consistent touch: they were touched on hand and they were told they were touched on hand change touch: touched on the hand but suggested that they were touched on the shoulder planted touch: kids who were never touched suggested that they were touched Results indicate Children were suggestible about "change touch" But resistant suggestion about planted touch or no touch Conclusion: "recollections can change only if the subject does not immediately detect discrepancies between post event information and memory for the original event" --That is, if the discrepancy between the true and false memory is large, children are less suggestible

Size of the Jury

Since the 1970s the Supreme Court has allowed juries to range in size from 12-6 people in non-capital offenses Increased efficiency No discernable difference in verdict Ex. Tryvone Martin in Florida was a 6 person jury Saks (1977) found the court got it wrong Review of "science" found that research used by the court was either not actually science or their interpretations were faulty Research has found that large juries o Are more representative in several ways o Deliberate longer o Recall evidence more accurately o Generate more arguments o Produce more arguments o Produce more consistent verdicts o Are less likely to split evenly down the middle

MacArthur Foundations Assessments

Since then several other research teams have created competency FAIs Largely developed based on Bonnie's distinction of fundamental and decisional competence Example vignette: Two men, Fred and Reggie, are playing pool at a bar and get into a fight. Fred hits Reggie with a pool stick. Reggie falls and hits his head on the floor so hard that he nearly dies. Then ask: - Open ended questions - Explanations and retest - True/False questions - MacArthur Structured If got it wrong, give them right answer, then retest to see if they were able to comprehend and learn Assessment of the Competencies of Criminal defendants (MacSac-CD): 82 items, 2 hours, research only MacArthur Competency assessment tool criminal adjudication (MacCat-CA): 22 items, 30 minutes, practical use MacArthur Judgment evaluation (MacJEN): used to assess juvenile decision making

Hung Juries

Some argue that hung juries are a sign of the justice system working Should occur in cases where the evidence is ambiguous or the law is unclear Indicate that verdicts are not being reached by brute force (normative pressure) Hung juries are infrequent occur in about 6.2% of cases Caveat: occur at a slightly higher rate in diverse cities (Such as LA) Dynamite Charge (aka Allen Charge or Shotgun Instruction): Judge asks jury to "reexamine your views and to seriously consider each others arguments with a disposition to be convince" Research suggests this causes many jurors to feel coerced and as though a hung jury is not a viable option

Stages in the deliberation process

Stage 1 orientation o Juries elect a foreperson o Discuss procedures o Raise general issues THEN choose between verdict or evidence Verdict driven style: take a vote at the beginning of deliberations and then structure discussion around verdict options, 30% of juries Results in less systematic examination of evidence Jurors focus on defending their opinion (Levett et al 2005) Evidence Driven Style Vote is postponed until after jurors have discussed all of the evidence Optimal strategy Stage 2 Open Conflict Different opinions among members become apparent, coalitions may form, can be contentious, people begin to challenge alternative interpretations of the evidence SOCIAL influences can start to take place like... Informational influence: Jurors change their opinion because other jurors make compelling arguments Normative influence: Jurors do not really change their private views, but they change their vote because they give in to peer pressure Stage 3 Reconciliation When jurors reach a common understanding and agreement or when one faction capitulates Hung juries do not make it to this phase

*Evidence to suggest NICHD protocol works

Sternberg et al (2001) 100 victims of CSA: 50 interviewed using NICHD protocol, 50 interviewed using previously standard police interviewing practices Participants were matched on age and case characteristics (severity and relationship to perp) Results indicate Children provided 2 ½ times more details to NICHD protocol Children were more likely to make disclosures to open ended prompts in the NICHD (89%) than in police interviews (36%) NICHD interviews elicited more information from open ended prompts (and less from suggestive and closed ended prompts) than did police interviews *This means

Chapter 13 Jury Decision Making What evidence is considered?

Strength of the evidence is the best predictor of a jury's verdict Liberation hypothesis: in cases where the evidence is ambiguous or close jurors will be "liberated" from the constraints of evidence they will base decisions on factors such as prior beliefs, past experiences, or even prejudice Potential forms of biasing evidence o Pretrial publicity o Inadmissible evidence o Complex evidence

Individual Influence

Strong jurors: jurors who tend to have disproportionate influence on the deliberation process o Well educated o Articulate oHave high occupational status Ex. Twelve angry men Foreperson "technical leader of jury" In reality, foreperson tends to take on a organizational and moderator role than "strong juror" influence More likely to be nominated foreperson if: • You speak first • Have task relevant experience • Are an extrovert • Have served on a jury before • Have high status job • Sit at the head of the table • Ask "should we nominate a foreperson"

The McMartin preschool case Kelly Michaels Wee Care Daycare

The McMartin preschool case 1983- Mother of a student accused Ray Buckey of sodomizing her son after the son experienced pain while attempting to go to the bathroom Parents were then asked to "act as investigators" Accusations against multiple members of the McMartin/Buckey family eventually included: o Sodomy o Taking pornographic photographs of children engaged in sex acts o Tunneling underground to rob graves o Hacking up corpses in front of children o Molesting children during hot air balloon rides Ray Buckey and Peggy McMartin Buckey were charged with 207 counts of child molestation Peggy McMartin Buckey was acquitted; Ray Buckey was tried twice, both trials ended in a hung jury- the prosecution closed the charges after the second trial Kelly Michaels Wee Care Daycare "that's what my teacher does to me at school, her takes my temperature" Accusations included: o Playing the piano naked o Licking peanut butter off children's genitals o Forcing children to drink her urine and eat her feces o Raping children with various objects (Forks, knives, spoons, legos) Was convicted on 115 counts of child sexual abuse based on the testimony of 19 children, sentenced to 47 years Served 5 years before her case was overturned by the supreme court State v Michaels (1994): the interviews of the children were highly improper and utilized coercive and unduly suggestive methods

Impact of waiver

The assumptions underlying the use of waivers have not been supported by the research Lotke and Schiraldi (1996): Compared youth homicide rates in states with high transfer rates with low transfer rates Results show that transferring youth does not impact homicide rates. Increased transfer rate does not result in greater protection of the public "Connecticut has the highest transfer rate in the nation, and it has the same youth homicide rate as Colorado whose transfer rate is nearly zero. Bishop et al (1996) Compared recidivism of youths transferred vs those who remained in the juvenile justice system Found that recidivism was actually higher in the population that was transferred 30% of transferred offenders were rearrested compared to 19% of the non transferred offenders What happens to juveniles in adult prisons? Prisons focus on punishment- unlikely to have the rehabilitative programs targeted at adolescents' needs Prisons are violent- juvenile are at increased risk for victimization Young people placed in adult correctional institutions, compared to those placed in institutions designed for youths, are 8 times as likely to commit suicide, 5 times more likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, and 50% as likely to be attacked by a weapon.

Children victims and witness summary

There are many crimes where children's reports are the only evidence Children are not as reliable as adult witnesses, they (especially pre school aged children) are susceptible to stereotypes, post event misinformation, and suggestion However, under the right circumstances even preschoolers can provide accurate and reliable info about abuse related info Research has identified a narrative-structured protocol as "best practices" for interviewing young children -Rapport building -Open ended questions -Follow ups (cued invitations and wh questions) Testifying can be stressful for children but there are alternatives Child witnesses are needed in order to prove certain crimes. However, there are limitations to children's abilities to report experienced events Therefore structured forensic protocols are needed when interviewing children

Psychosocial maturity

The complexity and sophistication of the process of individual decisions making as it is affected by a range of cognitive, emotional, and social factors o Responsibility: involves the adolescents capacity to make autonomous choice, independent of external influences o Temperance: involves the ability to control impulses and exercise self restraint. Risk taking is higher among adolescents. Adolescents are higher on sensation seeking and impulsivity and more susceptible to mood changes o Perspective: involves adolescents ability to see both short and long term consequences, the ability to understand how one's actions might affect others, and the ability to weigh costs and benefits of a decision. " Before adulthood, greater weight is given to acquiring potential gains than to avoiding potential losses, and to short term rather than long term consequences The lower you are the more likely to be delinquent Empirical support for development of psychosocial maturity: 1000 participants ranging from 12-48 found significant difference on the 3 domains of psychosocial maturity as a function of age. Suggesting that psychosocial maturity does in fact develop over the period of adolescence However there are a significant individual differences within age groups A mature 13 year old could make more mature decisions than an immature adults

Background on insanity

The insanity defense is based on the principle that it is immoral to punish someone who is not responsible for his actions The theory behind the punishment Retribution/Just deserts: punishment for a crime should be proportionate to the harm caused. "an eye for an eye" Deterrence: An individual offender should be punished so she learns that committing a crime leads to punishment (specific), also other similarity situated individuals will vicariously learn these actions lead to punishment (general) These reasons for punishment do not make sense if the person did not understand what they did was wrong when they were doing it

Juvenile Justice Today

There are a wide variety of "disposition orders"/ sentencing options available in juvenile court Consequences can range in severity from a verbal warning or fine to institutionalization Some popular options are o Probation Allowed back into the community supervised by a probation officer (most common juvenile sentence) o Community based programs • Diversion programs • Say treatment programs o Juvenile institutionalization • Temporary care facilities (jails, detention centers, shelter care) • Correctional facilities (boot camps, diagnostic centers, ranches and forestry camps, training schools)

Shadow juries

Typically used in high stake trials Shadow jury: a group of 10-12 people who are selected to match the demographics of the actual jury Sit in the courtroom during the trial, hear a condensed version of what is argued in court each day, or watch a video of trial Are questioned throughout the trial about their reactions to the evidence and arguments Used by attorneys to adjust strategies in real time

Disclosure and delayed disclosure

Unfortunately it turns out the perpetrators strategies work Research has discovered that many victims delay disclosing abuse Most adult survey respondents reporting sexual abuse never disclosed as children (London et al, 2008, Lyon 2009) About 1/3 of victims wait at least a year (and often longer) before telling someone Delayed disclosure motives o Fear of harm to self or others o Fear of rejection by non-abusive caregiver o Concern for family and thinks delay might protect others o Fear about being delivered by disclosure recipient o Bad consequences for perpetrator o Inability to trust anyone to disclose to o Wanting to protect other children (often siblings) from abuse

The insanity defense

Unlike competence, "insanity" refers to a defendants mindset at the time the crime was committed But like competence, insanity is a legal term, that does not correspond to any established psychiatric diagnosis Insanity requires, that due to mental illness, a defendant lacks moral responsibility and culpability for their crime, and therefore should not be punished

History of Juvenile justice

Until 1899 age was an irrelevant consideration if a crime had been committed Unless the offender was under 7- then they were deemed too young to commit a criminal act The Illinois Juvenile Justice Court Act (1899) Created the first independent juvenile court system Focused on rehabilitation rather than punishment Handled "juveniles in need of protection" Including juveniles who were delinquent, neglected, or dependent Parens Patriae The state's duty to protect those who cannot protect themselves Under this doctrine the state had the right to intervene in the lives of youth, even over parents' objections, when the court ruled it was in the best interest of the child Since focus was on rehabilitation, rather than punishment, youth's due process rights were largely ignored, very informal proceedings, didn't recognize children had rights (argument: don't need strict rules bc we are trying to rehabilitate) Youth were not afforded Although juvenile courts often had the best intentions, they tended to operate at the expense of fundamental constitutional rights This changed due to two supreme court cases in the 1960s Kent v United States (1966) Really bad kid, transferred from juv to adult court without being told so he had no chance to fight it and he was convicted in adult court. Appealed all the way to SC Court may not transfer a juvenile to adult court without appropriate warning (ie a hearing and accompanying safeguards). First ruling to keep "parens patriae" courts "in check"

Voir Dire

Voir dire: "to see and tell", "to speak the truth" Attorneys (state) and judges (federal) ask potential jurors a series of questions to determine who will serve on a jury Challenges: ability for attorneys to remove potential jurors Challenges for cause: attorney is claiming that, because of bias or prejudice, it is unlikely the juror could render an impartial verdict No limit Judge must agree Peremptory challenge: attorney can dismiss a juror without giving a reason and without approval from the judge Number is limited (based on location, type of trial, etc) Defense typically is allowed more There are limits to peremptory challenges Cognizable: members of a similar group often share a characteristic or attitude that distinguishes them from other potential jurors Batson v Kentucky (1986) Batson convicted of burglary and convicted by an all white jury, eventually overturned bc prosecutor in case removed every AA from jury. BC of this case, written into law: cannot exclude someone based on race Cannot dismiss based on: race, gender, or religion affiliation* (if religious reason cant be impartial, can't approve death penalty, can dismiss this) Attorneys may try to circumvent this law Judges are allowed to question peremptory challenges if it appears an attorney is dismissing a juror for race, gender, or religion Attorney will have to give a reason

Group Dynamics

What happens during deliberations? 12 person juries 3 most vocal people take up 50% of deliberations 3 least vocal people contribute very little 70-75% of the time is devoted to the evidence 2-% of the time is devoted to discussions about the law and the judges instructions Jurors spend little time on irrelevant details or superficial qualities Flow of conversation tends to follow a "committee meeting" structure (everyone takes their turn, leader of the meeting)

CST and Right to refuse treatment

What happens if a defendant does not want accept treatment? Newer treatments do not have the same motor skill side effects, but they are rarely given (ex. Expensive) and some have lethal side effects Why might a defendant want to refuse treatment? Treatment often has negative side effects Mentally ill defendants may lack awareness of their illness and see medication as unnecessary Delusions could cause them to see medication as part of larger plot to hurt or destroy them Defense attorney may want to avoid competency restoration as a strategy for avoiding a trial Considering these options... Should the government be able to force a defendant to accept treatment? And if so what should they have to prove in order to do so? Court cases with right to refuse treatment: • Riggins v Nevada (1992) • Washington v Harper (1990) • Sell v United States (2003)

Complex Evidence

What happens if jurors don't understand evidence? This often happens with complex scientific evidence (ex. DNA)and or evidence presented by expert witnesses Research suggests an interaction with the type of testimony and who is giving it that predicts how jurors will consider it (Cooper, Bennett, & Sukel, 1996) If evidence is complex, the prestige of the expert will predict the weight given to the jury If the evidence is clear, then the witness's credentials are not as important

What happens once a child discloses What went wrong: children as witnesses

What happens once a child discloses: Some become dead-end disclosures Many receive further exploration On average children receive four formal interviews: • Law enforcement • DCFS • Medical/mental health professionals • School professionals This is in addition to informal conversations at home. Concern regarding the accuracy of children's reports because of suggestion/coaching What went wrong: children as witnesses: A large body of research has examined children's eyewitnesses memory, with specific attention to the effects of suggestion and misinformation on children's reports For decades researchers debated over whether children could be expected to reliably and accurately recount experienced events, especially traumatic and stressful ones Some research showed that children were highly suggestible and prone to providing false accusations Other research suggested for certain events and information, children were quite accurate and reliable

What is a narrative interview? Narrative Interview Why not closed ended?

What is a narrative interview? Narrative practice rapport building Open ended questions Cued invitations and follow ups Narrative Interview Replace close ended questions with open ended questions Closed ended questions are those that can be answered with a single word or detail Yes/no, forced choice (this or this), specific who what where when why how questions that ask for specific pieces of information Why not closed ended? Because children will answer with a single word rather than use their words Often suggest what you think happened rather than what the child knows Require you to use your words and those words may be difficult or ambiguous Sometimes children have response biases (some always say yes, some always no) Children will guess when they don't know the answer

Ted Talk

Why are we trying kids as adults? Juv court is focused on rehabilitation rather than punitive a life time of consequences in an adult court and poor fit for kids. TO change: change laws/policy to not allow kids to be held in adult jails, get rid of mandatory sentencing laws for youth in adult system, fix laws in some states that say you are an adult when you are 16/17