Edie Greene

Jury Decision Making: Implications For and From Psychology:

Jury trials play a centrally important role in the law, and they are also of interest to psychologists. The manner in which individual jurors perceive, interpret, and remember evidence, as well as the group processes involved in jury deliberation, can be described in terms of fundamental cognitive and social psychological concepts. Juries provide a real-world laboratory for examining theoretical issues related to reasoning, memory, judgment and decision making, attribution, stereotyping, persuasion, and group behavior. Conversely, psychological research can inform trial procedures, enabling juries to benefit from fairer procedures and reach better outcomes. Thus, jury decision making has implications for psychological theory, and psychological research has implications for legal policy.

Assessing Knowledge of Elder Financial Abuse: A First Step in Enhancing Prosecutions

Financial exploitation by a family member is the most common form of elder mistreatment; yet, it is a difficult crime to detect and prosecute. Psychologists have traditionally assisted prosecutors by assessing decisional capacity and opining in court whether an alleged victim was able to consent to the contested transactions. This article proposes and evaluates a novel form of psychological expertise in financial abuse trials—social framework testimony to reeducate jurors who are misinformed about aspects of this largely hidden crime. Findings suggest that, as in cases of child and spousal abuse, social framework testimony on the general dispositional and situational factors inherent in elder financial abuse may enhance prosecutions.

Cops and robbers (and eyewitnesses): a comparison of lineup administration by robbery detectives in the USA and Canada

The purpose of this study was to determine how American and Canadian robbery detectives collect identification evidence and whether their practices are consistent with published guidelines. Via a survey, we asked about the use of various lineup practices (e.g., single-blind vs. double-blind administration, sequential vs. simultaneous presentation, and videotaping). Canadian detectives are more likely to use research-based reforms such as double-blind sequential lineups and videotaping. We also assessed how robbery detectives interact with eyewitnesses at four points during a lineup: prior to the lineup, immediately after an identification, and after 12 seconds and 3 minutes have elapsed without an identification. Results showed that at the latter two junctures, officers from both the countries question eyewitnesses in subtle ways that could influence the likelihood of choosing and confidence in the selection. Canadian detectives are less likely than American detectives to do so, however. This finding can be explained by the absence of written guidelines in most US jurisdictions on how officials should interact with eyewitnesses during lineups.

Stereotypes influence beliefs about transfer and sentencing of juvenile offenders

ABSTRACT Despite sharp drops in juvenile crime since the mid-1980s, punitive policies regarding juveniles who commit serious offenses still exist. We assessed beliefs about two such practices: transferring offenders from the juvenile justice to the criminal justice system, and subjecting them to sentences of life without parole (LWOP). We examined whether stereotypes about juvenile offenders – the extent to which people believe they are dispositionally violent superpredators versus economically and socially impoverished wayward youth – influence support for these policies. We measured 321 participants’ beliefs about the causes of juvenile crime and juveniles’ potential for recidivism and rehabilitation. Using vignette methodology and actual case facts, we described a 13-, 17-, or 21-year-old offender who murdered a stranger or abusive parent, and asked whether he should be transferred to criminal court and sentenced to LWOP. As endorsement of the superpredator stereotype increased, so did support for these practices. Offenders who murdered an abusive parent were shown more leniency. Older offenders were generally treated harsher, except by people with strong superpredator stereotypes who, on the issue of LWOP appropriateness, did not distinguish among juveniles of different ages. Findings suggest that stereotypes can influence judgments in cases involving juveniles and indirectly affect policy-making about juvenile offending.

Experts on Expertise? How Judges Apply Standards for Admission of Expert Testimony

What do the courts want from expert testimony, and how do judges assess professed expertise? These questions form the core of this meticulously written and thought-provoking book on the role of expert evidence in courts of law. Rather than presenting a criticism of the abuses of expert testimony (Hagen, 1997), a practical guide to the task of being an expert witness (Brodsky, 2004), or an overview of issues in a specific subfield of psychological expert testimony (Ceci & Hembrooke, 1998), Sales and Shuman are concerned primarily with the standards that judges use to decide whether to admit expert testimony in court. To begin their analysis, they deconstruct the goals of the Federal Rules of Evidence (1974). Their attention focuses particularly on Rule 102, which governs the admissibility of evidence in federal courts, and on Rule 702, which concerns whether proffered experts should be allowed to testify. Because both rules have been adopted by most state courts, their analysis has broad applicability.

Extraordinary and Compelling: The Use of Compassionate Release Laws in the United States.

As the United States’ prison population has increased in size and aged, the number of older inmates in deteriorating health has grown markedly. In 1984, federal compassionate release laws were established, allowing for the release of inmates given “extraordinary and compelling circumstances” not present at sentencing. Many states established similar laws. Despite possible financial and ethical benefits of compassionate release, few inmates have been released under these laws. This research explored why. In Study 1, to assess the scope of this legislation, we provided a compendium of relevant laws, including information on jurisdictions with such laws, criteria for release outlined in each law, and exceptions that may preclude release. Results demonstrated that as of 2016, 46 jurisdictions had a compassionate release law in place. The most frequently cited criterion for release was having a chronic illness. In Study 2, to assess the possibility that public sentiment presents obstacles to using these statutes, we probed members of the public and prison wardens on perceptions of the laws, including factors (i.e., criminal history and offense type) associated with willingness to recommend release of a chronically ill inmate. Both community members and wardens were generally supportive of compassionate release, especially for nonviolent inmates and those with no criminal history. To explain why these statutes are underutilized, we comment on the complexity and diversity of mechanisms involved in correctional bureaucracies and propose a cost-benefit framework in which the risk of reoffending and loss of retributive opportunity outweigh pragmatic benefits of release on compassionate grounds.

Undergraduate Education in Law and Psychology

Larry Wrightsman’s textbook, Psychology and the Legal System, is the longest-lived, best-selling, and arguably most influential text read by students in law and psychology courses across the country. This chapter focuses on Larry Wrightsman’s considerable contributions to undergraduate education in law and psychology. With subsequent editions of his text, we have the uncanny ability to trace the growth in the field throughout the years and take note of the changes that have occurred through Wrightsman’s eyes. It is important to describe the organizing framework featured in every edition of Psychology and the Legal System, namely the broad psychological and philosophical issues that Wrightsman termed “dilemmas” at the intersection of the two fields—and we drill down on two of them: rights of individuals versus the common good, and equality versus discretion. The chapter illustrates the evolution of these two themes and provides exemplars from various editions of the textbook. In particular, the chapter comments on the psychological science, case law, and legal policies relevant to those issues. One of the objectives is to use Wrightsman’s significant contribution as a vehicle for examining ongoing and vibrant debates in the field of psychology and law. Another is to illustrate how the two disciplines have independently and jointly examined topics of broad societal concern and provided complementary perspectives on their resolution.