Daniel A. Krauss

The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing.

The Supreme Court and many state courts have assumed that jurors are capable of differentiating less accurate clinical opinion expert testimony from expert testimony based on more sound scientific footing and of appropriately weighing these two types of testimony in their decisions. Persuasion and jury decision-making research, however, both suggest that this assumption is dubious. The authors investigated whether mock jurors are more influenced by clinical opinion expert testimony or actuarial expert testimony. Results suggested that jurors are more influenced by clinical opinion expert testimony than by actuarial expert testimony and that this preference for clinical opinion expert testimony remains even after the presentation of adversary procedures. Limited empirical evidence was found for the notion that various types of adversary procedures will have a differential impact on the influence of expert testimony on juror decisions.

Mock Jury Research: Where Do We Go from Here?

This paper reviews the four types of validity that make up Cook and Campbells traditional approach for social science research in general and psychological research in particular: internal validity, statistical conclusion validity, external validity, and construct validity. The most important generalizability threat to the validity of jury research is not likely a selection main effect (i.e., the effect of relying solely on undergraduate mock jurors) but is more likely the interaction of sample with construct validity factors. Researchers who try to capture the trial process with experimental paradigms may find that undergraduate mock jurors react differently to those efforts than do more representative community samples. We illustrate these issues with the seven papers that make up this volume, and conclude by endorsing Diamonds call for a two-stage research process in which findings with samples of convenience gradually add more realistic trial processes and representative samples to confirm the initial findings and increase the research programs credibility.

Gold versus platinum: Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence?

In a series of studies, the authors examined (a) public perceptions concerning forensic scientific evidence, (b) the relative influence attributed to DNA evidence compared to other forms of forensic identification evidence, and (c) the impact of cross-examination addressing the limitations of DNA testimony. In Studies 1 and 2, both undergraduate students and representative jurors rated DNA as the most accurate and persuasive type of evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence. This finding was consistent across samples of individuals with varied exposure to media coverage of scientific evidence. Experimental results further revealed the strong influence of DNA evidence in verdict decisions regardless of the type of crime or whether the evidence was incriminating or exculpatory. In Studies 2 and 3, DNA-based expert testimony demonstrated strong effects on juror decision-making even after cross-examination. These effects were mitigated to some extent in Study 3, however, by the interaction of the reliability of DNA evidence and the focus of cross-examination. The implications regarding the use of DNA and other scientific evidence for public policy and practice in legal decisions are discussed.

Predictors of Treatment Completion in a Correctional Sex Offender Treatment Program

The purpose of this study was to examine what factors increase the likelihood that a sex offender will complete a correctional sex offender treatment program. Participants were 179 incarcerated adult male sex offenders who volunteered to participate in a sex offender treatment program. The two groups evaluated were treatment completers and noncompleters. By examining archival records the following data were collected: scores on the Multiphasic Sex Inventory II (MSI II), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), the Abel and Becker Adult Sexual Interest Card Sort, and plethysmograph. Demographic information was obtained from presentence investigation reports. Results from a logistic regression indicate that more years of education, not having a history of sexual victimization, and lower levels of minimizing or excusing sexual crimes predict treatment completion (p < .05). These results suggest that it is possible to predict which incarcerated sex offenders are likely to complete a prison-based sex offender treatment program.

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Professional Perceptions of Jury Decision-making Research Practices

This article reports results from a survey measuring the acceptability of jury decision-making research practices. Historically, there has been wide variability in the methodology used to conduct experimental jury decision-making research. Samples can be drawn from different populations, the format of stimulus materials can vary, key elements of a trial, including jury instructions and deliberation, can be omitted, and different types of dependent measures can be used to assess decisions. The acceptability of evaluating different approaches for conducting research ultimately becomes a subjective process. The present study sought to identify professional standards regarding acceptable and unacceptable research practices by assessing the perceptions of individuals involved in conducting, reviewing, and publishing jury research. Overall, respondents (N = 74) placed greater weight on internal rather than ecological validity, and rated the utilization of theory to guide research as the most important factor. The inclusion of jury instructions was rated as the most important specific trial element, while deliberations received the least support. The findings present a guide for researchers designing materials, provide a framework for objective evaluation of manuscripts based on professional standards, offer guidance to courts seeking to determine the general acceptance of jury decision-making research methodologies, and create a foundation for the development of more standardized practices in the field. Copyright

A National Survey of United States Sexually Violent Person Legislation: Policy, Procedures, and Practice

Sexually Violent Person (SVP) commitment statutes provide for indeterminate civil confinement of certain sex offenders after completion of their criminal sentences. In the United States, SVP laws raise important concerns relating to due process, ex post facto claims, and protection against double jeopardy. However, it is unclear to what extent current legislation addresses or neglects these issues. Without a systematic review of SVP legislation and related case law, it remains unknown to what degree U.S. states have incorporated different strategies to protect individual rights outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court. In this study, SVP statutes from each U.S. state, the federal government, and the District of Columbia, along with related case law, were examined to evaluate (1) the requirements of SVP confinement, (2) the procedures by which SVP hearings occur, and (3) the degree to which the requirements enumerated by the U.S. Supreme Court have been followed. Although nearly half of all states have SVP statutes, findings reveal that statutes differ considerably regarding standards of proof, commitment procedures, appeals standards, definitions of important terms, and procedural safeguards. Moreover, case law provides important information on how SVP laws actually operate. Findings are discussed in light of psychological, legal, and policy implications.

Contemplating the Presence of Third Party Observers and Facilitators in Psychological Evaluations

Significant controversy surrounds how psychologists should balance competing interests when considering whether and under what conditions third parties should be permitted to be present during psychological evaluations. This is especially true in forensic contexts where much is often at stake for those being assessed. Unfortunately, existing professional statements on this issue provide limited guidance to practitioners on how to think about this issue. In this article, the authors (a) distinguish between different types of third party participants, (b) highlight the competing interests that underlie third party presence decisions, and (c) offer a framework for psychologists to employ when considering third party presence.

The effects of mortality salience and evidence strength on death penalty sentencing decisions

The nature of capital cases necessarily makes mortality a highly salient factor in the courtroom. Terror management theory research has previously explored mortality salience effects on behavior in a variety of contexts, including legal judgments. We sought to extend this line of research by directly examining mortality salience effects in the context of capital trials. In Study 1, mock jurors who had been specifically asked to contemplate their own mortality and exposed to trial-related death references (Dual-Focused Mortality [DFM]) were more likely to appropriately weigh evidence regarding defendant future dangerousness than participants only exposed to trial-related death references (Trial-Focused Mortality [TFM]). In Study 2, we manipulated mitigating factor strength using a different capital sentencing scenario. Consistent with the results of Study 1, DFM participants were more likely to appropriately utilize mitigating evidence than TFM participants, particularly when they had more complete comprehension of relevant legal concepts.

Guardianship and the Elderly

The increasing size and proportion of the elderly, individuals 65 and older, in the U.S. population is a well-documented trend (Fell, 1994; Friedman & Savage, 1988; Polivka, 1991; Rein, 1992; Tor, 1993). While in 1980 the elderly constituted roughly 11% of the U.S. population or 25.5 million people, in 1990 they made up 13% of the population or 31 million people, and it is projected that by the year 2030 they will represent nearly 22% of the population or 65 million people (Scogin & Perry, 1986). The 85 and older age group represents the fastest growing segment not only of the elderly population, but also of all age groups (Fell, 1994; Iris, 1988; Polivka, 1991; Smyer, 1993).

The antitrust, discrimination, and malpractice implications of specialization

Abstract In response to pressure from applied psychologists for the creation of speciality certification boards, professional organizations (e.g., the American Psychological Association and the American Boards of Professional Psychology) have considered and developed specialization and specialty recognition rules. This process may raise potentially serious professional and legal ramitications. Consequently, this article evaluates significant antitrust, discrimination, and malpractice remifications connected with specialization and specialty recognition within the field of professional psychology. The issue raised in the antitrust and discrimination sections of the article affect the very creation of specialty boards, whereas the issue raised in the malpractice section may strongly affect the individual practitioner who becomes board certified. The overarching purpose of this article is to assess and explain the legal implications raised, to predict, where possible the legal treatment of particular specialization-related behavior, and to twarn about possible legal pitfalls and liabilities. Our goal is to arm specialization activity with foresight, so that this inevitable activity can be formulated responsibly by practitioners, specialty organization, and patient/consumers, in a direction useful both for psychology and society.