Forensic Psych

Front 1

Marbury vs Madison

Back 1

establishes the court's authority as the final interpreter of the constitution

Front 2

Writ of certiorari

Back 2

orders the case record for review in the supreme court

Front 3

1st amendment

Back 3

freedom of expression

Front 4

4th amendment

Back 4

no unreasonable search and seizure

Front 5

5 amendment

Back 5

due process - self incrimincation and double jeopardy

Front 6

the three levels of proof

Back 6

preponderance of evidence, clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt

Front 7

sheppard v maxwell

Back 7

supreme court rules that too much pretrial publivity prevented dr sam sheppard from getting a fair trail

Front 8

Rideau v Louisana

Back 8

got Rideo to admit crimes, inteview broadcasted three days later, convicted and sentenced to death, released after retrial

Front 9

Nebraska Press vs Stuart

Back 9

Gag order, there must be clear and present danger to the defendants rights

Front 10

Gannett v DePasquale

Back 10

press had no right before the trial

Front 11

--% of defendants evaluated are found competent to stand trial

Back 11

70

Front 12

defense attourneys question their clients competence in --% of cases

Back 12

15

Front 13

for every 1 defendant a jury finds not guilty by reason of insanity, -- are found incompetent to stand trial

Back 13

100

Front 14

Jackson vs Indiana

Back 14

If it is determined that competency may never be restored, many defendants remain in mental health institutions, despite the law prohibing indefinite confinement

Front 15

many states limit restoration treated from -- months to -- months

Back 15

6-12

Front 16

jurisdiction

Back 16

the authority of a court to hear and decide cases

Front 17

indictment

Back 17

a document that outlines the charge or charges against a defendant.

Front 18

suspects wave the right to a grand jury hearing in about --% of all cases

Back 18

80

Front 19

pretrial release

Back 19

the release of an accused person from custody for all or part of the time before or during prosecution up on his or her promise to appear in court when required, 62-66% of the time

Front 20

arraignment

Back 20

with an indictment or information in hand the accused will be formally arraigned.

Front 21

"guilty act" "guilty mind"

Back 21

actus reus, mens rea

Front 22

entrapment

Back 22

the defense that the individual was induced by the police ot commit the criminal act

Front 23

about --% of incarcerated offenders are held in mental hospitals because htey were found not guilty by reason of insanity

Back 23

1%

Front 24

Five tests for insanity

Back 24

M'Naughten Rule, Irresistable Impulse Test, Durham Rule, Model Penal Code's Sustantial Capacity Test, Insanity Defense Reform Act

Front 25

M'Naughten Rule

Back 25

at the time committin the act the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature of quality of hte act he was doing if he did know it that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.

Front 26

Model Penal Code

Back 26

as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law

Front 27

Durham Rule

Back 27

legal tests for insanity were either obsolete or flawed. most lawyers felt this test gave too much power to medical professionals

Front 28

Brawner Rule

Back 28

defined insanity in terms of social justice, lead the adoption of the ALI test

Front 29

ALI test

Back 29

substantial capacity test
“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”

Front 30

6th amendment

Back 30

the right to counsel and a fair trial, the right to a speedy trial and an impartial jury

Front 31

8th amendment

Back 31

protection against excessive bail, excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment

Front 32

Case law

Back 32

law that results from judicial decisions (built on legal reasoning and past interpretations, guides decision making, especially in the courts

Front 33

Common Law

Back 33

The traditional body of unwritten historical precedents created from everyday social customs, rules, and practices which may be supported by judicial decisions

Front 34

Criminal (penal) law

Back 34

a branch of modern law that concerns itself with offenses committeed against society, its members and their property and the social order

Front 35

Stare decsis

Back 35

the courts recognize previous decisions to guide future deliberations

Front 36

Brawner Rule

Back 36

Decision of insanity is based solely on the jury

Front 37

Insanity defense reform act

Back 37

a condition in which the defendant can be
shown to have been suffering under a “severe
mental disease or defect” and as a result, “was
unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts.”

Front 38

Diminished Capacity

Back 38

Diminished capacity, or diminished responsibility, is based on claims of a mental condition that may be insufficient to exonerate the defendant of guilt but that may be relevant to specific mental elements of certain crimes or degrees of crimes

Front 39

Tort Law

Back 39

"wrong" protects a variety of injuries and provides remedies for them, the injured party can bring a civil lawsuit to seek compensation for wrong done

Front 40

intentional tort

Back 40

assult, battery, defamation of character (false statements made by one person about another), slander, liebel,

Front 41

unintentional tort

Back 41

damages and liability

Front 42

negligence

Back 42

intent versus carelessness, "i didn't meant to do that" or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.
1. duty
2. breach = failure to meet standard of care
3. cause = breach must cause the harm
4. harm = physical

Front 43

gross negligence

Back 43

reckless disregard, shocking rehavior

Front 44

proximate cause (legal cause) in negligence

Back 44

a negligent party is not necessarily liable for all damages set in one motion by his or her negligent act, the law establishes a poitn along the damage chain after which the neg party is not longer legally responsible

Front 45

affirmative defense

Back 45

the burden is one the defendant to prove insanity

Front 46

diminished capacity

Back 46

defendant lacks the ability to meaningfully premeditate the crime

Front 47

types of civil commitment

Back 47

emergency detention, voluntary inpatient, involuntary inpatient commitment, outpatient commitment

Front 48

compensatory damages

Back 48

payment owed to a plaintiff for damages and harm that have been determined to have been caused by a civil defendant

Front 49

punitive damages

Back 49

financial compensation as a form of punishment for failure to respond to a misconduct