Gender differences in attitudes toward psychopathic sexual offenders

Although a considerable amount of research has been conducted examining the validity of psychopathy as a psychological construct, relatively few studies have focused on the effects of using this disorder in "real-world" settings to influence the attitudes of laypersons who are making life-altering decisions about offenders. This study attempted to replicate and extend earlier findings (Guy & Edens, 2003) suggesting that there are gender differences in the impact of expert testimony regarding psychopathy. A sample of 599 undergraduates reviewed case facts regarding a hypothetical Sexually Violent Predator trial in which the type of risk assessment testimony provided (clinical opinion, actuarial scale, psychopathy evaluation) and the age of the victims (adult versus child) were manipulated. Consistent with prior research, despite overall high rates of support for commitment in the adult victim condition, men were less prone than women to support civil commitment when the defendant was described as "a psychopath" (62.5 versus 86.5%). No such gender differences were noted in the clinical opinion or actuarial conditions. When the victims were identified as children, type of testimony had no impact because support for commitment was almost unilateral. Finally, ratings of how psychopathic the defendant was perceived to be (regardless of the testimony provided) were significantly associated with support for commitment across most conditions.     

Determining dangerousness in sexually violent predator evaluations: cognitive-experiential self-theory and juror judgments of expert testimony

Past research examining the effects of expert testimony on the future dangerousness of a defendant in death penalty sentencing found that jurors are more influenced by less scientific clinical expert testimony and tend to devalue scientific actuarial testimony. This study was designed to determine whether these findings extend to civil commitment trials for sexual offenders and to test a theoretical rationale for this effect. In addition, we investigated the influence of a recently developed innovation in risk assessment procedures, Guided Professional Judgment (GPJ) instruments. Consistent with a cognitive-experiential self-theory based explanation, mock jurors motivated to process information in an experiential condition were more influenced by clinical testimony, while mock jurors in a rational mode were more influenced by actuarial testimony. Participants responded to clinical and GPJ testimony in a similar manner. However, participants' gender exerted important interactive effects on dangerousness decisions, with male jurors showing the predicted effect while females did not. The policy implications of these findings are discussed.     

Jurors' Views on the Value and Objectivity of Mental Health Experts Testifying in Sexually Violent Predator Trials

Although psychologists and psychiatrists often testify in court, we know relatively little about the extent to which jurors value the testimony they hear from these experts. We surveyed 161 jurors who rendered opinions in 14 sex offender civil commitment trials after hearing testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses. Most jurors reported that the experts they heard testify were honest, and they tended to attribute disagreements among experts to case complexity, as opposed to adversarial allegiance or bias. Most reported that hearing from the experts helped them make better decisions and that experts using risk assessment instruments could make more accurate predictions than those who did not. Jurors were, however, more skeptical about the ability of experts to accurately predict recidivism when they heard testimony from both prosecution and defense experts. Findings suggest that jurors value risk assessment testimony from experts, but that experts must think carefully about how to best make risk assessment instrument results accessible to jurors. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The impact of mental health evidence on support for capital punishment: are defendants labeled psychopathic considered more deserving of death?

Controversy surrounds the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist--Revised (Hare, 1991, 2003) in capital murder cases, where it has been introduced to support prosecution claims that a defendant represents a "continuing threat to society". Although widely presumed to have a prejudicial impact (e.g., American Psychological Association, 2004), little is known about how the lay public reacts to data derived from ostensibly stigmatizing assessment instruments such as the PCL-R. The present study examined the effect of psychopathy data on layperson attitudes by having 203 undergraduates review a capital murder case where the results of the defendant's psychological evaluation were experimentally manipulated. When expert testimony described the defendant as psychopathic, a much larger percentage of participants supported a death sentence (60%) than when testimony indicated that he was psychotic (30%) or not mentally disordered (38%). Interestingly, participant ratings of how psychopathic they perceived the defendant to be--regardless of the testimony condition to which they had been assigned--also predicted support for a death sentence. Given the limited probative value of the PCL-R in capital cases and the prejudicial nature of the effects noted in this study, we recommend that forensic examiners avoid using it in these trials.     

Race Shapes Perceptions of Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court1

We investigated the effects of defendant race, victim race, and juror gender on non‐African American mock jurors' perceptions of crimes committed by juvenile offenders. We predicted that mock jurors, particularly men, would render more pro‐prosecution case judgments when the defendant was African American than White. We also predicted that defendants would be judged more harshly when the crime victim was portrayed as White rather than as African American. Although there were few main effects of defendant race or victim race on case judgments, defendant and victim race by juror gender interactions revealed that men (but not women) demonstrated the predicted bias against African American defendants and victims. Explanations and implications are discussed.     

Preventing the Application of Stereotypic Biases in the Courtroom: The Role of Detailed Testimony1

To determine whether detailed testimony has equivalent effects on judgments of stereotyped and nonstereotyped defendants, subjects read a synopsis of a criminal court case in which the defendant either was a stereotyped offender or was not. Additionally, the degree of detail in the prosecution testimony and defense testimony was varied. Results indicated that defendant stereotypicality had a greater impact under conditions in which witnesses provided equal amounts of detail in their testimony. When witnesses differed in the degree of detail in their testimony, the stereotypicality of the defendant was disregarded and judgments favored the witness who provided greater detail. These findings suggest that stereotype application is not inevitable; rather, stereotypes may bias jurors' decision-making processes when the quality and quantity of the evidence does not easily lead to a confident judgment.     

Degree of Detail of Eyewitness Testimony and Mock Juror Judgments1

The influence of the degree of detail of eyewitness testimony on two sides of a court case was investigated in two experiments. In the first experiment subject-jurors read a civil court case involving an automobile-pedestrian accident. The plaintiff and the defendant presented conflicting eyewitness accounts. Judgments of the relative credibility of the eyewitnesses on each side and the percentage of negligence of the parties were influenced by the relative degree of detail of the eyewitness testimony on each side. In the second experiment subject-jurors read a criminal court case involving robbery and murder. The prosecution and defense presented conflicting eyewitness accounts. The degree of detail of the prosecution eyewitness testimony influenced judgments of guilt and judgments of the credibility of the eyewitnesses. An examination of the reasons for verdicts and credibility judgments revealed that some subjects inferred that an eyewitness who gave testimony with a greater degree of detail had a better memory for the trivial details and the culprit than an eyewitness who gave testimony with a lesser degree of detail. Implications of these results for the legal system are discussed.     

‘The witness who saw, /he left little doubt’: a comparative consideration of expert testimony in mental disability law cases in common and civil law systems

The question of how courts assess expert evidence—especially when mental disability is an issue—raises the corollary question of whether courts adequately evaluate the content of the expert testimony or whether judicial decision making may be influenced by teleology (‘cherry picking’ evidence), pretextuality (accepting experts who distort evidence to achieve socially desirable aims), and/or sanism (allowing prejudicial and stereotyped evidence). Such threats occur despite professional standards in forensic psychology and other mental health disciplines that require ethical expert testimony. The result is expert testimony that, in many instances, is at best incompetent and at worst biased. The paper details threats to competent expert testimony in a comparative law context—in both the common law (involuntary civil commitment laws and risk assessment criminal laws) and, more briefly, civil law. We conclude that teleology, pretextuality, and sanism have an impact upon judicial decision making in both the common law and civil law. Finally, we speculate as to whether the new United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is likely to have any impact on practices in this area. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Race,Rape, and Bias: Distortion of Prior Odds and Meaning Changes

Two experiments were conducted to investigate how racial bias affects juror decision making. Three sources of bias were studied: (1) prior probabilities of guilt, (2) distortion of the meaning of evidence, and (3) differential weighting of information. A paired comparison technique employed in the first study revealed that pretrial probabilities of guilt were greater when the victim was White than when she was Black. In the second experiment, a different group of subjects viewed one of four videotaped simulated rape trials in which seven segments of testimony had been previously rated as pro-prosecution, pro-defense, or neutral. During the trial, subjects rated each segment on three different scales: prosecution, defense, and degree of defendant guilt. Results indicated that neutral evidence was seen as more favorable to prosecution for a White victim compared to a Black victim. Evidence which favored either prosecution or defense was not distorted. Regression analyses revealed a positive relationship between estimates of guilt and distortion of evidence. The weight or importance of the evidence did not vary as a function of victim or defendant race. Years of recommended imprisonment indicated greater severity toward the Black assailant of a White woman. The results suggest that bias in favor of White victims occurs both in the assessment of pretrial probabilities and perception of evidence.     

Videotaped Versus In-Court Witness Testimony: Does Protecting the Child Witness Jeopardize Due Process?1

Videotaping depositions may protect a child witness from the stress of testifying in court but also may influence jurors’ perceptions of the child and the defendant, and jurors’ verdicts in systematic ways. The present study examines several psychological hypotheses that emerge from the controversy over the use of videotaped depositions of child witnesses in child sexual abuse trials. We predicted that student jurors viewing a videotaped deposition would be more proprosecution and less prodefense than those who did not receive testimony in such a form. Thus, it was predicted that jurors viewing a videotaped deposition would perceive the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies more favorably, the defense witnesses and their testimonies less favorably, and give more guilty verdicts than jurors who viewed identical testimony during the course of a trial. We also predicted that females would be more proprosecution and less prodefense than males and that this gender difference would be accentuated by the medium of presentation. The medium of presentation had only a few effects on jurors’ responses. However, when differences emerged, they generally provided support for the predicted main effects. The implications of these findings for the use of videotaped depositions of child sexual abuse victims are discussed.     

Reaction of mock jurors to testimony of a court appointed expert

A study was conducted to assess the impact of court appointed experts on the judgments of mock jurors. A civil proceeding was adopted for the experiment. Mock jurors heard testimony about a plaintiff's injury in an automobile accident. In some conditions, medical testimony for the plaintiff and defendant was provided by experts hired by each side. In other conditions, a medical expert appointed by the court testified in addition to the two adversarial experts. In one of these conditions, the court expert sided with the plaintiff; in another, the expert sided with the defendant. The plaintiff in the case was always an individual. The defendant was sometimes a corporation and sometimes an individual. The results showed that mock jurors sided with the court appointed expert in every condition except when the expert favored a corporate defendant. The results were discussed in terms of heuristic processing of persuasive information.     

Personality disorder and violence: understand violence risk: an introduction to the special section personality disorder and violence

This paper introduces the Special Section on personality disorder and violence. The first paper evaluates the impact of removing the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) as a mandatory element of a major approach to the assessment of violence risk-the HCR-20. The second paper considers violence to self as well as violence to others; it examines the influence of dysfunctional personality traits in a sample of female offenders. The third paper provides a systematic framework for risk formulation, discussing how to bridge the gap between nomothetic research and the individual case. This paper concludes by arguing that there is a need to shift perspective from asking "what?" dysfunctional traits are relevant to future violence to "why?" are particular traits relevant. The "why?" question is particularly germane in the forensic arena where expert testimony must endeavor to provide a causal explanation of risk processes at the level of the individual.     

"Good and bad, I defined these terms, quite clear no doubt somehow": Neuroimaging and competency to be executed after Panetti

There has been little consideration, in either the caselaw or the scholarly literature, of the potential impact of neuroimaging on cases assessing whether a seriously mentally disabled death row defendant is competent to be executed. The Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Panetti v. Quarterman significantly expanded its jurisprudence by ruling that such a defendant had a constitutional right to make a showing that his mental illness "obstruct[ed] a rational understanding of the State's reason for his execution." This article considers the impact of neuroimaging testimony on post-Panetti competency determination hearings, and looks at multiple questions of admissibility of evidence, adequacy of counsel, availability of expert assistance, juror attitudes, trial tactics, and application of the Daubert doctrine, and also considers the implications of the lesser-known Panetti holding (that enhances the role of expert witnesses in all competency-to-be-executed inquiries). It warns that the power of the testimony in question has the capacity to inappropriately affect fact-finders in ways that may lead "to outcomes that are both factually and legally inaccurate and constitutionally flawed."     

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases: The effects of evidence,coherence and credentials on juror decision making

Psychological experts have been used increasingly to testify in child sexual abuse cases, yet little research has investigated what specific factors make experts effective. This study examined the potential effects that credentials, evidence strength and coherence may have on juror decision making. Sixty‐four mock jurors read cases of child sexual abuse, followed by experts' testimony and rated guilt of the defendant, effectiveness of the expert testimony and credibility of the victim. Evidence strength and coherence of the testimony affected all dependent variables, and the interaction was significant. Guilt ratings of the defendant were lower and the victim was rated as less credible when both evidence strength and coherence were low. The credentials of the expert, however, had negligible impact. These findings indicate that experts can be effective and impact jurors when testimony is either high in coherence or high in evidence. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Improving the Credibility of Child Sexual Assault Victims in Court: The Impact of a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner

The present study investigated the influence of a sexual assault nurse examiner's (SANE's) testimony on mock juror perceptions of a child or adolescent victim of child sexual assault. Community members (N = 252, 156 females) read a fictional criminal trial summary of a child sexual assault case in which the victim was 6 or 15 years old and the prosecution presented medical testimony from a SANE or a traditional registered nurse (RN), or did not present medical testimony. Mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when a SANE testified compared with the other two testimony conditions. In addition, pro-victim judgments (e.g., sympathy toward the victim) and negative defendant judgments (e.g., anger toward the defendant) mediated this relation. Finally, cognitive network representations of the case demonstrated that the RN and no-medical-testimony groups were similar and the SANE group was distinct from the other two conditions. We discuss these results in terms of the implications of SANE testimony in child sexual assault court cases. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An Aiibi Witness' Influence on Mock Jurors' Verdicts1

The impact of alibi testimony on juror decision making is not yet clear because it has been examined empirically infrequently. This study was designed to determine the impact of alibi witness' testimony, the impact of an alibi witness with a relationship in comparison to one without a relationship to the defendant, and the impact of an eyewitness' confidence on juror decision making. Results indicated that mock jurors acquit a defendant more often when an alibi witness with no relationship to the defendant testified on his behalf. Participants did not believe an alibi witness who had a relationship with the defendant even though the witness was not a family member. Implications for these results are discussed.     

A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists

Clinical psychologists are frequently called on to testify in court regarding mental health issues in civil or criminal cases. One of the legal criteria by which admissibility of testimony is determined includes whether the testimony is based on methods that have gained "general acceptance" in their field. In this study, we sought to evaluate the psychological tests used in forensic assessments by members of the American Psychology-Law Society Division of the American Psychological Association, and by diplomates in the American Board of Forensic Psychology. We present test results from this survey, based on 152 respondents, for forensic evaluations conducted with adults using multiscale inventories, single-scale tests, unstructured personality tests, cognitive and/or intellectual tests, neuropsychological tests, risk assessment and psychopathy instruments, sex offender risk assessment instruments, competency or sanity-related instruments, and instruments used to evaluate malingering. In addition, we provide findings for psychological testing involving child-related forensic issues.     

Habla Ingles? The Effects of Language Translation on Simulated Juror Decisions1

Two studies were conducted in which college students, acting as simulated jurors, heard the testimony of a defendant in an assault case. The testimony was presented in English or in another language (Spanish in Study 1 and Thai in Study 2) which was translated into English by an interpreter. In Study 1, non-Hispanics judged the defendant to be more guilty than did Hispanics when the defendant's testimony was presented in Spanish than when it was presented in English. This bias was offset when the judge's instructions admonished the jurors to ignore the fact that the defendant's testimony was translated. Similarly, in Study 2, subjects (all non-Thai) judged the defendent more guilty when his testimony was presented in Thai than when it was presented in English. Again, this bias was eliminated by the judge's instructions to the jurors to ignore the fact that the testimony was translated. The increased guilty verdicts for defendants who did not testify in English appeared to be due to prejudice and language ethnocentrism, the belief that defendants in U.S. courts should speak English.     

Potential erosion of psychotherapist-patient privilege beyond California: dangers of "criminalizing" Tarasoff.

The "dangerous patient exception" to psychotherapist-patient privilege, adopted almost a decade before the celebrated case of Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (1976), was mentioned in a footnote to that decision in the context of an analogy. Although intended to permit testimony in civil commitment proceedings, this exception has been used to "criminalize" the Tarasoff duty in California. California courts eroded the privilege initially primarily to permit victims to sue psychotherapists and later to require psychotherapists to testify against their patients in criminal proceedings and appear to have confused evidentiary privilege and confidentiality. If consistent, similar reasoning in California in the future should allow therapists to testify against their patients if they were civilly committed in the past for dangerousness and attorneys to testify against their clients in criminal cases if at some earlier time they believed their clients represented a risk of future harm. Although most other jurisdictions may not word their privilege exceptions for civil commitment in the same way as California, most states have some type of privilege exception for civil commitment that could allow for such an interpretation. The United States Supreme Court in Jaffee v. Redmond (1996) found a psychotherapist-patient privilege, but stated in a footnote that an exception to the privilege would exist if a serious threat of harm to the patient could be averted only by means of disclosure by the therapist. Other jurisdictions have begun to consider these issues. Rather than being unique to California, similar reasoning could lead to the "criminalization" of Tarasoff in other jurisdictions and thereby compel therapists outside California to testify against their patients in criminal proceedings.