Psy 474 Final

Front 1

Strauder v. West Virginia

Back 1

1880
no systematic or intentional exclusion of cognizable groups of people

Front 2

Cognizable groups case

Back 2

Strauder v. West Virginia
1880

Front 3

Jury Selection and Service Act

Back 3

1968
set policy that juries should be representative as possible
through random selection of a cross section of the community

Front 4

1968
policy that juries should be representative
and drawn from a random cross section

Back 4

Jury Selection and Service Act

Front 5

Effectiveness of voter registration lists
how to supplement?

Back 5

poor!
licensed drivers
people on public assistance
unemployment lists
all in an attempt to find otherwise under-represented groups

Front 6

deafness and jury selection

Back 6

recently permitted to serve
even though the elimination of the functional limitation is so easy

Front 7

Reasons for not being permitted to serve on a jury

Back 7

vision problems
incompetence
cannot speak english
felony convictions
alien status

Front 8

Old automatic exemptions from jury duty?

Back 8

physicians
firefighters
vets
podiatrists
phone operators
embalmers
most states have now eliminated automatic exemptions

Front 9

Swain v. Alabama

Back 9

black man accused of rape
all white jury
all black jurors struck with peremptory challenges
SCOTUS upheld
cemented use peremptory challenges, as long as they were not intentionally excluding

Front 10

Three kinds of challenges to jurors

Back 10

peremptory
for cause
judicial

Front 11

peremptory challenge

Back 11

“by choice”
can be done for any reason
(barring certain exclusions)
usually 3, 6, etc allowed, at judge’s discretion

Front 12

for cause challenge

Back 12

must be identified and reasoned
infinite number allowed
fairly uncommon

Front 13

reasons for for cause challenge

Back 13

relationship to others / parties
awareness of the case

Front 14

judicial strike

Back 14

judge strikes juror
for cause
no involvement of attorneys

Front 15

race-neutral peremptory challenges:
paper tiger?

Back 15

yes
easily avoided by giving minimum possible additional cause

Front 16

peremptory challenges:
good or bad?

Back 16

good over all (reaching medium at Justice (explain))
open to misuse, yes
but protections are vaguely useful

Front 17

implicit personality theories

Back 17

making broad decisions about a person by looking at their characteristics
”this one thing: totally representative of their personality”

Front 18

what theory?
making broad decisions based on observed characteristics of a person

Back 18

implicit personality theory

Front 19

similarity-leniency hypothesis

Back 19

tendency to give leniency to those who are similar to you

Front 20

what hypothesis?
tendency to go easy on people like you

Back 20

similarity-leniency hypothesis

Front 21

black sheep hypothesis

Back 21

tendency to be harsher on those who are similar to you
to ostracize those who reflect poorly on you

Front 22

what hypothesis?
tendency to ostracize those who reflect poorly on you

Back 22

black sheep hypothesis

Front 23

demographics and verdict prediction

Back 23

effect size is small, but may be worth it in some cases
gender predicts sexual harassment verdicts
also socio-economic status
and personality type

Front 24

gender’s effects on verdict prediction

Back 24

small but significant effect in sexual harassment cases
especially if the foreperson is a woman

Front 25

personality and verdict prediction

Back 25

Authoritarians may be more punitive
internal locus of control folks too
external LOC may be more lenient
belief in a just world will attempt to apportion blame

Front 26

authoritarianism and verdict prediction

Back 26

authoritarians may be more punitive
but also more lenient if the defendant is also an authoritarian
(military guy? tough dad?)

Front 27

locus of control and verdict prediction

Back 27

internal would be more punitive,
external more lenient

Front 28

Psycholegal concerns about tech in the courtroom

Back 28

what does technology miss?
video conferencing separates you from body language, expression ...
what clues do you normally get from in-person contact?
and will tech make things too real?

Front 29

Will technology make things too real in the courtroom?

Back 29

Maybe :)
all tech is still telling one side of the story
if it’s too immersive, it may be overly biasing
vividness effect (like plane crashes)
effects of presence
experiential inflammatory bias
the CSI effect

Front 30

Vividness effect

Back 30

when a vision seems so readily available, it begins to seem more likely
like plain crashes
relevant to courtroom tech

Front 31

Effect of Presence

Back 31

concern about courtroom tech
if you’re getting absorbed into a simulation, are you still able to look at things objectively?

Front 32

Experiential Inflammatory Bias

Back 32

hyper-real situations will absorb us and make us more likely to believe what’s been presented to us

Front 33

the CSI effect

Back 33

juries expect hard facts and technological evidence
so, why can’t you enhance, enhance, enhance?

Front 34

judges v. juries
citizen opinion?

Back 34

mostly, juries
want people to think of you “as a person”
exception: simple, technical legal case

Front 35

do judges and juries agree?

Back 35

yes, judges rarely overturn jury decisions
though will sometimes overturn ridiculous sentences

Front 36

Kalvin and Zeisel

Back 36

compared judges’ opinions on jury decisions
found that judges agreed with juries about 75% of the time
which is perfect (50 is chance, 100 may as well not have juries)
but were these really representative of reality?

Front 37

how is it that 75% agreement between judges and juries is right?

Back 37

well, 50% is chance, 100% is as good as not having juries

Front 38

Why do juries deviate from judges?

Back 38

difference in knowledge of evidence
extralegal factors:
pretrial publicity
trivial nature of crime
unfairness of law or punishment
etc.

Front 39

Problems with Kalvin and Zeisel’s study

Back 39

representativeness of cases (high conflict areas, maybe?)
representativeness of judges (who weighed in?)
changes to jury system(CSI effect, etc)
self-report nature of data

Front 40

Jury Nullification

Back 40

A refusal to convict on nominally illegal charges
like Woody Harrelson, Jack Kevorkian

Front 41

Study on notifiying juries of right to nullify

Back 41

higher conviction rate for drunk driving offenses
lower in euthanasia and in the case of a mentally deficient defendant

Front 42

The trial process
order of events

Back 42

complaint
cross-complaint
voir dire
opening arguments
plaintiff’s case
defendant’s case
closing arguments
judge’s instructions
deliberations
verdict
appeal

Front 43

Stats on juries in torts cases

Back 43

.75M torts, contract, real property cases
2% see juries

Front 44

What can happen on appeal?

Back 44

Overturn
additur
remittitur

Front 45

Additur

Back 45

when judge adds damages beyond the original amount set by jury

Front 46

Remittitur

Back 46

lowering the amount of damages granted by jury in a civil case

Front 47

Public participation argument for juries

Back 47

better decisions
civic duty
the perception of justice

Front 48

Pro-jury arguments

Back 48

juries are more flexible
juries don’t get elected
juries don’t need to provide a “correct” opinion

Front 49

con-jury arguments

Back 49

trials are hard (complex, technical legal issues)
forcing jury to serve in long trials for low pay
juries can make shitty decisions
(OJ, Rodney King, McD’s coffee)

Front 50

Facts in McD’s coffee case

Back 50

81 yo grandmother
received $2.7M
judge remittitur for 480K
settled for 600K
McD’s required their coffee to be served too hot
received 700 complaints in the previous 10 years
refused to settle for simple compensation
$2.7M is 1-2 days of coffee sales for McD

Front 52

what is tort reform?

Back 52

reducing incidence, amount, and unpredictability of punitive damage awards

Front 53

possible tort reforms

Back 53

bifurcating trial into liability and damages phases
adopting “clear and convincing” burden of proof (better than 51% liability)
allocate portion of punitive damage to the state
giving damages phase to judge
caps

Front 54

“Clear and convincing” burden of proof

Back 54

possible tort reform
rather than the 51% liability we currently have

Front 55

Ways of Capping Punitive Damages

Back 55

hard cap (monetary amount)
multiple of compensatory damages
cap and multiplier (ie. 3x comp, or 30k if comp <100k

Front 56

Criticism of punitive damages caps

Back 56

don’t bear relationship to behavior of the defendant
$10 pair of glasses case
decrease in punitive potential
caps backfire - romeo and juliet effect (reactance)
anchoring and adjustment heuristic

Front 57

Punitive damage cap criticism:
don’t bear a relationship to defendant behavior

Back 57

shouldn’t a company be fined out the wazoo for really bad behavior?

Front 58

punitive damage cap criticism:
decrease in punitive potential

Back 58

what is 250k to McDonalds or Ford?

Front 59

$10 pair of glasses case

Back 59

punitive damage cap criticism
gun fired into crowd misses everyone but breaks someone’s pair of glasses
should the defendant really only be assessed 3x the compensatory damage claim?

Front 60

how do punitive damages caps backfire?

Back 60

romeo and juliet effect
anchoring and adjustment heuristic

Front 61

punitive damage cap:
romeo and juliet effect

Back 61

reactance effect
acting out in reaction to percieved limiting of behavioral freedom
may cause jury to award max cap amount at all times...

Front 62

punitive damage cap criticism:
anchoring and adjustment heuristic

Back 62

people tend to not move far from an original number given to them
may cause jury to award close to cap, even if they would have awarded less without the cap

Front 63

role of forensic assessor

Back 63

determine characteristics which may predict behavior and recidivism rates

Front 64

criminal commitment

Back 64

legal process of holding an accused person in mental health facility
for competency or insanity

Front 65

definition of competency

Back 65

must understand what they’ve been accused of
(and what it means to be found guilty of same)
and must be able to assist in their own defense

Front 66

assisting competency

Back 66

if competency can be restored through medication, do so
note that drugs may lessen hallucinations but not change paranoia
person is still incompetent

Front 67

trouble with medication for competency

Back 67

drugs may lessen some symptoms without truly restoring competency

Front 68

how long is a person committed for comptency?

Back 68

until competency has been restored
until they’re found incompetent and set free for minor crimes
until they move to civil commitment

Front 69

competency and juveniles

Back 69

difficult!
pre-frontal cortex develops last, into mid 20s
must assume that juveniles are not competent to waive Miranda rights

Front 70

in re Gault (1968)

Back 70

SCOTUS case resulting in juveniles in delinquency cases being given the same constitutional protections of due process as adults
also meant that the state would be less protective and more adversarial to juvies

Front 71

Grisso

Back 71

Studied differences in juvie and adult competency to stand trial
found that juvies should not be considered competent to waive Miranda rights
also that judge must assess the totality of circumstances including age, experience, and intelligence

Front 72

Insanity

Back 72

legal status determined by court (not by mental health professional)

Front 73

NGRI

Back 73

Not guilty by reason of insanity
meaning that the person was mentally unstable at the time of their crime
and unable to understand the wrongness of what they’re doing at the time they did it

Front 74

Andrea Yates NGRI debate

Back 74

having mental health issues doesn’t necessarily equal insanity
just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you get off for unrelated crimes

Front 75

McNaughton Rule

Back 75

re NGRI
disease prevents ability to know the nature and quality of the act being committed

Front 76

“Nature and Quality” in NGRI cases

Back 76

nature: knowing what you’re doing
quality: knowing that it was wrong

Front 77

ALI - Brawner Rule

Back 77

NGRI
at time of conduct, defendant lacks capacity to appreciate criminality of conduct or conform to the requirements of law
so, appreciate criminality and conform conduct
added volitional prong
was removed in 1984

Front 78

Differences between McNaughton and ALI

Back 78

NGRI
ALI uses “appreciate” which acknowledges emotional factors
ALI reduced knowledge from “did not know” to “substantially limited”
ALI has cognitive AND volitional prongs
(meaning volitional can be an independent way to determine insanity, because they knew but were unable to control)

Front 79

Insanity Defense Reform Act (1984)

Back 79

Removed volitional prong from ALI rule, returning us to Mcnaughton
prohibited experts from testifying about insanity (though they could testify about mental state, while jury decides “insanity’)
Defendant must prove they are insane (rather than burden of sanity being on the prosecution)

Front 80

Malingering

Back 80

exagerating a symptom in hopes of being ruled incompetent or insane

Front 81

Combating malingering

Back 81

look at records - change doesn’t happen overnight
built in lie-detectors (how often are your hallucinations in black and white?)
lie scales built into MMPI, etc

Front 82

Stats on NGRI
perception and reality

Back 82

perception: lots of people get off on it
and half just go to a hospital
and 25% are set free
and those in hospitals are out in a few months
but:less than 1% of felony cases see NGRI defenses
the plea results in acquittal around 26% of the time
85% of those found NGRI are sent to a hospital, 12% have conditional release, 2% in outpatient treatment,1% are simply set free
and time spent in commitment is often greater than equivalent jail time

Front 83

usual narrative in commitment cases

Back 83

person goes to prison
then transfer to treatment facility for prescribed time
then doc decides if they’re a danger
in which case they’re sent to civil commitment
where they may only get evaluated once per year
thus people may end up staying longer in hospitals than they would in jail

Front 84

Civil commitment

Back 84

legal process of committing someone against their will
usually for safety concerns

Front 85

How to commit someone?

Back 85

with out a court order, if Drs sign off, person can be held for 72 hours
or with a court order if a danger to self or others or cannot care for self due to disability

Front 86

Outpatient commitment?

Back 86

including tracking anklet things...

Front 87

Forensic Risk Assessment

Back 87

is this person safe to head back out into the community?
tricky because risk never goes away entirely
but you can use measures to help determine risk

Front 88

Risk Base Rate

Back 88

we know that certain factors predict recidivism, like:
age, number of offenses, type of offense

Front 89

Sensitivity in risk assessment measures

Back 89

ideally you’ll catch everyone you want to catch
if your sensitivity is high, you’re unlikely to see many false negatives, but more likely to see false positives

Front 90

risk assessment variables

Back 90

historical
personal
environmental

Front 91

risk assessment - types of behavior

Back 91

recidivism rate is higher for sex offenders
lower for non-sex violent offenders

Front 92

risk assessment - setting

Back 92

person may behave differently in a hospital setting
without home life and holding down a job, and access to drugs and alcohol
essentially, the generalizability of clinical measures, on a personal scale

Front 93

Psychopathy checklist - revised

Back 93

Factor analysis scale of 0-1-2 rating on behaviors
Factor 1 and Factor 2
1 = interpersonal and affective characteristics
2 = impulsive, antisocial and unstable lifestyle

Front 94

PCL-R factor 1

Back 94

interpersonal and affective characteristics
Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Front 95

PCL-R factor 2

Back 95

instability or social deviance
Antisocial Personality Disorder

Front 96

Committed patients’ rights

Back 96

right to treatment
right to least restrictive alternative
right to refuse treatment

Front 97

right to treatment

Back 97

patient has right to be given treatment, rather than simply being held indefinitely

Front 98

right to lease restrictive alternative

Back 98

patient has right to not be, say, committed indefinitely if another alternative will do the trick, such as medication or outpatient treatment

Front 99

right to refuse treatment

Back 99

patient has a right to refuse treatement
should we be allowed to medicate a person into competency, so that we can execute them?

Front 100

ethical principle guiding psychologists making clinical evaluations of risk

Back 100

must must must base assessments on sufficient information and be able to substantiate findings
opinion really can’t factor into it