FP Final

Card Set Information

Author:
jessiduke
ID:
122835
Filename:
FP Final
Updated:
2011-12-11 20:20:44
Tags:
forensic psych
Folders:

Description:
get an a on the final
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user jessiduke on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. felony murder
    convicting a defendant of murder because the felony act lead to a murder ( without intent per se).
  2. Bifurcated trial
    separtate phases for determining a verdict and punishment
  3. Guilt-determination phase
    the case in chief is presented to determine a verdict
  4. Sentencing/Penalty Phase
    guilt has been determined and mitigating/aggravating factors are presented and punishment decided
  5. Exculpatory evidence:
    evidence casting doubt on a defendant's culpability which the prosecution is required to turn over to defense
  6. •Harmless error:
    a mistake during a trial which would not have changed the trial outcome.
  7. Habeas Corpus:
    a writ/legal action requesting the release of a prisoner on grounds of unlawful detention.
  8. Aggravating factors
    •presented by the prosecution to make the crime/defendant deserving of more punishment
  9. Examples of aggravating factors
    • Law enforcement official killed ,Murder after kidnapping ,Heinousness (torture, victim suffering, child, etc.)
    • –Future dangerousness in their community,Multiple murders ,History of violence
  10. •Mitigating factors:
    presented by the defense to temper the punishment
  11. Examples of mitigating factors
    • No significant criminal history,Young age, Coercion by codefendant, Emotional reaction,Unforeseen consequences of the act ,Mental Retardation or mental illness,Bad childhood,Anything garnering sympathy for defendant
    • –*conceptual argument against the death penalty was most effective in simulated jury research.
  12. 1972-Furman v. Georgia (capital punishment)
    –U.S. Supreme Court banned execution due to the arbitrary/discriminatory nature
  13. 1976–Gregg v. Georgia (capital punishment)
    –State legislation satisfied concerns and it was reinstituted
  14. 1996–Congress Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
    –Reduced # of federal appeals
  15. 2002–Atkins v. VirginiaU.S. Supreme Court ruled
    that executing MR defendants violated the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment
  16. 2006–Roper v. Simmons
    –U.S. Supreme Court ruled that juveniles lacked maturity (and responsibility) to the degree of adults such that they should not be executed. –APA amicus brief cited as evidence
  17. 2006–Patriot Act
    –Attorney General can decide if states provide adequate counsel in death penalty cases
  18. 2007–Panetti v. Quarteman
    –U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant must be competent for execution
  19. Execution stats
    • •Legal in about 35 states, federal government, and military
    • •Over 1,000 executed as of June 2007
    • •Over 3,000 on state death rows
    • •Consider the error rate (conservative-.05%)
  20. Appeals to capital punishment- most often based on
    –Public defenders who are inexperienced, poorly paid, or given insufficient resources to hire experts
  21. Stats on Capital Punishment by state
    • •Alabama-defense attorneys for those on death row had a 20X higher rate of disciplinary action
    • •Kentucky-25% of those on death row had attorneys since disbarred (or would have been)
    • •Georgia-with fewer aggravating factors (>4) defendants with private attorneys are less likely to get death
  22. Competency for execution
    Related to the 8th Amendment-protection from cruel and unusual punishment
  23. Competency includes:
    –Knowing what is about to happen to you –Appreciating the consequences –Understanding the reason for which you are being executed
  24. APA-August 2001 unanimously passed a resolution to suspend the death penalty and filed an Amicus Brief
    •Objected to the death penalty based upon:
    • 2/3 of cases overturned on appeal
    • –DNA exonerated many persons on death row
    • –Death qualified jurors more conviction oriented
    • –Ethnicity influences being charged with a capital crime
    • –Jurors misunderstand mitigation
    • –Persons with mental illness (or retardation) may be prosecuted
    • –Capital punishment is not a deterrent
  25. Death qualification procedure
    • potential jurors must be able to follow the law or they may be removed for cause.
    • –Research suggests that over 25% of a death-qualified jury would automatically give the sentence.
    • •Jurors are less affected by mitigation because of the fundamental attribution error.
    • •Jurors do not sufficiently understand aggravating/mitigating factors.
  26. Pressure on police and prosecutors lead to wrongful convictions
    Homicides are cleared at a rate three times higher than that of other serious crimes
  27. Predictions of future violence (in prison)
    are not accurate
  28. Competency (for execution) evaluations are not thorough
    • –Frontal lobe “structural dysfunctions are likely to be found.”
    • –Forensic neuropsychologists should do evaluations in all cases where a defendant has a history of substance abuse, head injury, or special ed classes
    • –Testing should include intelligence, etc.
  29. Death penalty is not a deterrent
    • –States with it have a higher homicide rate –States that reinstituted it saw a rise in homicide rates
    • •After executions murder rates go up in the first month or two
  30. –Brutalitization effect:
    it makes human life less sacred, thus provoking those in society to murder when they might not have otherwise.
  31. Research opposing death penalty
    • •So did the murderers have any actual knowledge of the last execution (as implied by causality)?
    • •Do states with more violence institute the process rather than the process causing violence?
    • •No mention of correlation not causation.
  32. Executions cost more money
    • –Approximately 2 million more per case
    • –Primary expense at the trial level
  33. Avenues to influencing public policy
    • •Lobbying:
    • –Oklahoma Psychological Association annual dues ($300 per person) go in large part to pay one lobbyist
    • –Press releases
    • –Advocating for budgetary dollars
    • –Advocating for insurance/reimbursement policies
  34. Avenues to influencing public policty continued
    • •Working on legislative staffs
    • –Fellowships in Washington D.C.
    • •Providing expert witness testimony or briefs
    • –Typically to appeals courts or the supreme court
  35. •Guild Issues
    • –Confidentiality issues
    • –Insurance/reimbursement policies
    • –Licensure: New Mexico
    • –Prescription privileges
    • –Therapy over the use of medications
  36. Amicus curiae briefs:
    “a friend of the court…a bystander, who without having an interest in the case, of their own knowledge makes a suggestion on a point of law or of fact for the information of the presiding judge”
  37. APA amicus curiae briefs background
    • •First became an organized APA activity in 1970s
    • •Committee on Legal Issues (COLI) formed •Over 150 briefs in the last 25 years
  38. Brief examples
    • –Homosexuality in the military
    • –The legal definition of marriage
    • –Required information to be imparted to women prior to abortion
    • –Required parental notification for parents of minor children seeking abortion
    • •“Parental notification statutes are actually destructive of the family role in child rearing.”
    • –Whether the EPA should be required to consider the “psychological health” of citizens in decision making
  39. Science amicus brief-
    Translation brief: an “objective summary of research”
  40. Advocacy brief:
    “takes a position on some legal or public policy issue”
  41. APA brief motivations
    • •Get the message out”
    • •Achieve court rulings consistent with APA’s goals
  42. So are these actually Amicus curiae briefs, science translation briefs, or none of the above?
    “a friend of the court…a bystander, who without having an interest in the case, of their own knowledge makes a suggestion on a point of law or of fact for the information of the presiding judge”
  43. Ake v. Oklahoma
    • •Ake was diagnosed with schizophrenia and sent to Eastern State Hospital
    • •Court refused to pay for an expert on insanity (an affirmative defense)
    • •Defense failed
  44. What was the appropriate role, if any, of APA & OPA? (In Ake v. Oklahoma)
    • –Mental health diagnosis is beyond laypersons’ expertise
    • –Defenses without experts are at substantial disadvantage
    • –“Amici submit that fundamental fairness requires the state…[pay]”
    • –Is it the job of scientist to inform the court what is “fair”?
  45. Death Qualified Juries
    • •More conviction prone than other juries
    • •Less “representative” of the community
    • •The Constitution does not preclude death qualifying juries:
    • –The JURY POOL must be representative, not the actual jury
    • –Being more “conviction prone” is not the same as pointing out a specific bias by a specific juror (or jury) against a specific defendant.
  46. Abortions among minors
    • •APA brief argued that adolescents typically have good reasons not to inform their parents and can make competent choices
    • •They “differ very little” from adults in the factors influencing their stated decision making
  47. Are there different emotional outcomes for adolescents who subsequently receive an abortion?
    • –At what point would the (legal guardian parent) be notified if there were medical complications?
    • –What if an adolescent wanted plastic surgery? Other procedures?
    • –What about the mass of APA research (on juvenile competency, juvenile interrogation, and juvenile execution) which cited:
    • –Adolescents as overly influenced by present time-orientation and at risk for making poor decisions affecting his/her future?
    • –Adolescents have front lobes (executive decision making) that is not fully formed and continues to develop into the 20s (Roper v. Simmons)
  48. Trial consultation defined
    Use of scientific theory and methods based in social science to aid an attorney in trial
  49. History of trial consultation
    • Late 1960s and early 1970s
    • ►Political trials (e.g., Harrisburg 7)
    • Current
    • ►Civil and high profile cases
    • O.J. Simpson, Rodney King, Menendez brothers
  50. Why Hire a Trial Consultant?
    ►“ No self respecting trial lawyer will go through the process of jury selection in an important case without the assistance of highly paid jury consultants.” (South Dakota Law Review, 1998)
  51. Training to become a trial consultant
    • No license required
    • 57% had psychology degree
    • Other degrees include communications and law
    • ►Age (M = 45.3, range = 18-74)
    • ►Years of experience (M = 9.6, SD = 7.3)
    • ►33% had prior experience in non-forensic profession
  52. Compensation for trial consultant
    • ►Highly lucrative
    • Adler (1989)-larger firms command fees of over $100,000, with annual revenues of over 25 million.
    • Firms established in major cities, including Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and New York.
  53. Well Known Trial Consultants
    • ►Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, Ph.D.-over 400 cases:
    • Richard Ramirez (the night stalker)
    • McMartin Preschool
    • Reginald Denny
    • John DuPont
    • O.J. Simpson
    • Rodney King
    • Wrote Reading People.
    • ►Dr. Phil was also a trial consultant.
  54. Voir Dire
    ►Latin for “tell the truth”
  55. 6th Amendment-
    right of a criminal defendant to trial by an impartial jury drawn from the community.
  56. ►7th Amendment-
    extends the right to a jury trial to civil suits.
  57. ►Jury deselection-
    judge/attorneys question jurors who might be biased and remove them through “challenges”.
  58. Two types of challenges
    challenge for cause and Peremptory challenges
  59. Challenge for Cause
    ►Not legally qualified (felony conviction, out of county, etc.) ►Could not impartially deliberate Judge will decide if a juror can be removed for Cause. Unlimited in number, but rarely successful.
  60. ►Peremptory challenges
    • Strike a potential juror without any specific reason.
    • Judge does not have to approve these
    • Limited based on judicial setting (usually 3 or so).
  61. voir dire may be used for
    • ►May be used for ingratiation and indoctrination
    • §Not the legally intended purposes.
  62. ►Ingratiation is an attempt to
    “befriend” oneself or win personal favor with a jury.
  63. Indoctrination-
    subtly implant favorable case ideas in the mind of the jury.
  64. Professional service of a trial consultant
    • ►Change of venue
    • ►Pretrial
    • ►Voir Dire
    • ►Courtroom strategies
    • ►Post trial
  65. Pretrial help from trial consultant
    • ►Profile jury demographics
    • Community attitude surveys
    • Focus groups
    • Mock trials
    • ►Leverage to prompt a settlement
    • ►Inform questions for voir dire and trial strategy
    • ►A “friendly juror profile” would be developed
  66. Voir dire services by a trial consultant
    • ►Questionnaire Development (based on pretrial research or general hypotheses) Specific emphasis on key case issues (infidelity, negative experiences with police, etc.)
    • ►Juror observation for:
    • Honesty
    • Attitudes towards attorneys or case issues
    • Personality characteristics (dress, speech, etc.)
    • Examine for consistent patterns/strongest traits
    • Look for extremes, deviations, and appropriateness
    • ►Attorney observation re: persuasion (success of ingratiation/indoctrination attempts).
    • ►Background checks on all prospective jurors, possible interviews.
    • ►Form lists of concerns regarding choosing each juror.
  67. use of mock trials/shadow juries
    • ►Jurors with similar demographics react to evidence and attorney behavior similarly
    • ►Video tape mock trials to observe juror reactions and group interactions
  68. When to conduct mock trials/shadow juries
    ►Typically civil cases with huge financial stakes and extensive funds available.
  69. Conducting focus groups/mock trials/shadow juries
    • ►where they were born and grew up
    • ►Parent’s occupations
    • ►how many kids were in their family
    • ►have they been involved in a lawsuit
    • ►do people sue too much or are they awarded too much money
    • ►should oral contracts be treated differently from written one
    • ►if someone lies once-are they likely to lie all the time
    • ►how do they feel about the death penalty
    • ►biases against large companies
    • ►employers’ responsibilities to their employees and vice-versa
    • ►fact patterns/legal issues involved in the case
  70. ►Level of authoritarianism
    In general, people higher in authoritarianism are more likely to convict and punish criminal defendants.
  71. ►Belief in the “just world hypothesis”
    Individuals who have a higher belief in this theory are less likely to feel sympathetic towards victims of crime or civil plaintiffs.
  72. Attributions of responsibility
    If they are high on internal responsibility, they may be less likely to accept extenuating or mitigating circumstances.
  73. Case specific issues:
    the relationship between specific beliefs and juror decisions may also be determined case by case. §For example, perceptions of racism, mental illness, infidelity, large corporations, etc.
  74. Mock trials-comments from jurors gathered about:
    • Their decisions
    • Perceptions of attorneys and case issues
    • Questions they might have wanted to ask.
  75. ►Witness preparation-by trial consultant
    • Familiarity with courtroom
    • Objective assessment of persuasive ability (Expertness, Trustworthiness, Attractiveness)
    • Training witnesses on techniques to improve.
    • Goals of testimony
    • ►Direct exam/cross exam
    • ►CANNOT INSTRUCT CONTENT
  76. ►Witness Impeachment
    • Preparation of cross-examination (Kansas Psychiatrist)
    • Preparation of rehabilitation (Dr. X and the SIRS)
    • Present during testimony (the machete killer)

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview