• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

Card Range To Study



Play button


Play button




Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

73 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
capacity to function meaningfully and knowingly within court
adjudicative compretence
competence to stand trial, competence to plead guilty
Dusky Standard
Was usually used for both – “sufficient abilityto consult w/ an attorney, with a degree of understanding, and rational andfactual understanding of the proceedings against him.”
issue of competence can be raised by
prosecutor, defense, or judge

historically by prosecutor

Jackson v. Indiana 1972
thosecommitted for being incompetent to stand trail, cannot be keptinstitutionalized for more than a reasonable amount of time
competence is raised in about ___% of felony cases by defense
semi structured
shorter, structured
uses vignette, then asks question, long
still uses vignette, shorter than MacSAC
developed w/ more legal input, uses dusky standard, semi-structured, considers malingering

gaining popularity

specifically for individuals w/ low IQ

lower reading level, less complicated questions

many try (18%), few succeed


formal competency hearing
ultimate opinion testimony: final statement, final clinical decision
Medina v. Cali 1992
a state can require a defendant to prove that he/she is incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence
Cooper v. Oklahoma 1996
requiring a higher standard of proof (clear and convincing) denies too many claims

clear and convincing = below a reasonable doubt but more than preponderance of the evidence

Stare v. Hayes 1978
individuals can appear at court unmediated, aslong as they are medicated when evaluated for competence
Riggins v. Nevada 1993
cannotforce medication unless it can be shown that the individual is a harm tothemselves or others w/o the medication
Sellsv. US 2003
government can administer meds to force competence but must be 1)medically appropriately, 2) unlikely to have side effects that restrictstrial’s fairness, and 3) necessary to further government trial-relatedinterests
Farettav. Cali 1975
constitutional right to represent self

Thepresiding judge must be convinced of adjudicative competence, that the waiveris voluntary and with understanding

cases regarding competence to refuse insanity plea
Whalen and Frendak
diff b/w competence and insanity
competence says nothing about responsibility

competence refers to mental abilities during proceedings

insanity judges whether or not responsible

insanity judges mental state at time of offense

mens rea
guilty mind
M'Naghten rule
did not know what they were doing or did not know what they were doing was wrong
Brawner rule
defendant is not responsible if: As a result of mental disease or defect, lackscapacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform itto the law
how brawner differs from m'naghten
“Appreciate" - incorporates both emotional andcognitive elements

Doesn’t require a total lack of understandingwhat you’re doing is wrong

Cognitive and volitional (willfulness) elements

Insanity Defense reform act 184
Responseto John Hinckley Jr.’s trial (tried to kill Reagan to impress Jody Foster)

Found not guilty by reason of insanityo Eliminatedwillfulness aspect (Couldn’t control, had no choice)

Prohibitedultimate opinion testimony on insanity

Burdenof proof is on the defendant; must be clear and convincing

revisions and reforms to insanity defense
1) Guilty but mentally ill: same sentence as guilty verdict but start in hospital w/ treatment

2) diminished capacity: evaluates mens rea at time of the offense

3) elimination of insanity plea: jurors making judgments they are not equipped to make, psychiatric opinions regarded as fact

Eddings v. OK 1982
requires that mitigating factors are heard in capitol sentence evaluations
Atkins v Virginia 2002
cant comprehend, cant put them to death
age of eligibility for juvenile transfer
why transfer juvenile
charged w/ homicide or other specific violent offenses, a history of prior juvenile offending
types of transfers
1) statutory exclusion: automatic transfer if aged 14/15 and committed a certain offense

2) judicial discretion: judges hears case and makes decision

3) prosecutorial discretion: prosecutor decides, jury doesn't have to hear

Kalvin & Ziesel study
do judges agree with jury verdicts

looked at 3500 trials

same verdict 75%

25% judge would have convicted

replication found similar findings, juries more lenient

all potential jurors showing up at court house

jury selection act 1968
jury needs to be a cross section of the community --> selection through driver's license and voter registration

excluded: deaf, blind, mentally impaired, non-english speakers, former felons, non US citizens

assumptions of heterogenous jury
1) better fact finders

2) more likely to contain minority memebers

voir dire
"to tell the truth"

actual jury selection process - used to rule out biases

Dennis v. US 1966
the right to question potential jurors about bias
peremptory challenges
--exclude jury member w/o reason, limited

--defense gets more

--unlimited challenges for cause

--can be misused

goals of voir dire (US v. Dellinger 1972)
--determine whether a juror meets statutory requirements

--discover grounds for challenge for cause

--discover info that could lead to logical use of peremptory challenge

Batson v. Kentucky 1986
--AfAm convicted

--prosecutor used most peremptory challenges to dismiss all black jurors

--denied 14th amendment (equal protection under law) --> cant be dismissed based on race

Batson Challenge
suspicion that peremptory challenge is based on race

Batson challenge --> attorney must give reason

Holland v. Illinios
principle of representatives: does not have to be own race that is excluded
JEB v. Alabama 1994
extended batson decision to gender
lawyers choosing jurors
lawyers rely on implicit personality theories - most likely to focus on stereotypes
similarity leniency hypothses
lawyers dont want to choose a juror that is similar to defendant more similar = more lenient
important characteristics of jurors
1) internal/external locus of control

---high internal - often more harsh

2) authoritarianism: trust in authority, more likely to convict

3) need of cognition: need info to make decisions, high - less likely to be swayed by irrelevant evidence, more technical more persuaded

scientific jury selection
use of trial consultant - focus groups, shadow groups, ratings of prospective jurors, community surveys
pretrial publicity
clash of 1st (free speech) and 6th amendments (fair trial)
US v. Burr 1807
jurors are not required to have no knowledge or preconception, only to be fair
Irvin v. Dowd 1961
1st case the SC struck down the conviction on the grounds of pretrial publicity
Rideau v. Louisiana 1963
exposure to news that included information strongly pointing towards guilt was in violation of due process
Shep v Maxwell 1966
judges should delay trail or relocate when prejudicial news is prevalent
Nebraska press association v Stuart 1976
a trial judge can only issue a gag order if they can prove that the news would prevent fair trial
richmond newspapers Inc. v. Virginia 1980
the press cannot be barred from attending and reporting a trial
Gannett Co. v. DePasquale 1979
press can be excluded from pretrial hearings b/c of the potentially prejudicial information that may not even be included in trial

Mu'Min v. Virginia 1991
defense does not have the right to ask jurors about the specifics of any pretrial publicity
what to do about pretrial publicity
1) continuance: stop for a period of time (violates right to speedy trial)

2) expanded voir dire: did not influence verdicts

3) judicial instructions: reactance effect - asking to not think about publicity, prompts you to think about it. instead make people suspicious of media's motives

4) import jurors: expensive, rarely used

5) change of venue: expensive, time consuming, most effective

jury nullification
ignore the law and acquit - when defendant is legally guilty but morally right
Duncan v. Louisianna
juries have the right to decide a case as a matter of conscious
US v. dougherty
juries can use nullification but do not have to be told about it
benefits of jurors
--introduces public participation in legal system

--increases legitimacy of system

--checks and balances

--can nullify laws when judges cannot

--educates public about the system

disadvantages of juries
--may not be competent to actually be a juror

--invite prejudice and bias

types extralegal information
--prior convictions - limiting instructions are ineffective

--multiple charges - more likely to convict when a charge added on

--propensity and negative character evidence

--opening statements: prosecution creates narrative, schema that is difficult to change


reform for extralegal evidence
--videotape whole trial, edit out inadmissible evidence, then present to jurors (but people will be less motivated/captivated by something they are are watching)

--warn jurors about possible inadmissible evidence prior and during trial (inoculation effect)

--secure a public commitment - each juror says they wont consider inadmissible evidence --> hypocrite if they do

extralegal information in civil cases
determine liability (looking for blame)

decide on damages (amount of blame)

determining liability in civil depends on
defendant's conduct

severity of injury is irrelevant

assessing damages: anchor and adjustment
work off first number that we hear

the more a plaintiff requests, the more they receive

juries and expert testimony
--evaluate testimonies fairly

--jurors are skeptical of experts

--don't pay attention to details

--unable to distinguish b/w valid and flawed research

juries and judge's instructions
--instructions difficult to decipher

--spend 20% of deliberation time talking about instructions

--judges unwilling to clarify

--instructions at the beginning is most effective

bias in juries
--juror bias: predisposition to interpret information based on past experience

--a common bias: pro-prosecution or pro-defense

--pre-decisional distortion: distorting the evaluation of evidence to support verdict choice

jury reforms
1) provide written summaries of evidence and testimonies - difficult, have to decide what to can and cannot be left out

2) giving instructions before/mid trial

3) provide written copies of instructions

4) allowing jurors to take notes - helps them remember better

5) provide evidence in exhibits in jury room