Valerie P. Hans

Training in Law and Psychology: Models from the Villanova Conference

Although the domain of law and psychology is a burgeoning and popular field of study, there has never been a concerted effort to evaluate current training models or to develop newer, more effective ones. Forty-eight invited participants attended a national conference held at Villanova Law School to remedy this deficiency. Working groups addressed issues of education and training for the undergraduate level; for doctoral-level programs in law and social science; for forensic clinical training; for joint-degree (JD/PhD-PsyD) programs; for those in practica, internships, and postdoctoral programs; and for continuing education. This article delineates levels and models of training in each of these areas.

Social Science and the Courts: The Role of Amicus Curiae Briefs

Social scientists have increasingly become involved in the submission of amicus curiae or “friend of the court” briefs in legal cases being decided by state and federal courts. This increase has triggered considerable debate about the use of briefs to communicate relevant social science research. This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of summarizing social science research for the courts. It also reviews the procedures for submitting briefs developed by the American Psychology-Law Society which, in collaboration with the American Psychological Association, has submitted its first brief inMaryland v. Craig, a case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Science in the jury box: jurors' comprehension of mitochondrial DNA evidence.

Questions about how jurors understand and apply scientific evidence were addressed in a mock jury study in which 480 jury pool members watched a videotaped mock trial that included expert testimony about mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) evidence purportedly linking a defendant to a crime. Collectively, jurors showed moderately good comprehension of the mtDNA evidence, although some made definitional and inferential errors. Comprehension was better among jurors with higher educational attainment and more mathematics and science courses. Lower comprehension was associated with jurors’ reservations about science and concerns about the contamination of mtDNA evidence. The results suggest that most jurors are capable of comprehending and employing scientific evidence presented during trial, although errors and doubts about the evidence should be anticipated.

Permitting Jury Discussions During Trial: Impact of the Arizona Reform

A field experiment tested the effect of an Arizona civil jury reform that allows jurors to discuss evidence among themselves during the trial. Judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants completed questionnaires in trials randomly assigned to either a Trial Discussions condition, in which jurors were permitted to discuss the evidence during trial, or a No Discussions condition, in which jurors were prohibited from discussing the evidence during trial according to traditional admonitions. Judicial agreement with jury verdicts did not differ between conditions. Permitting jurors to discuss the evidence did affect the degree of certainty that jurors reported about their preferences at the start of jury deliberations, the level of conflict on the jury, and the likelihood of reaching unanimity.

To Dollars from Sense: Qualitative to Quantitative Translation in Jury Damage Awards

This article offers a new multi-stage account of jury damage award decision making. Drawing on psychological and economic research on judgment, decision making, and numeracy, the model posits that jurors first make a categorical gist judgment that money damages are warranted, and then make an ordinal gist judgment ranking the damages deserved as low, medium, or high. They then construct numbers that fit the gist of the appropriate magnitude. The article employs data from jury decision making research to explore the plausibility of the model.

Jury Decision Making

The jury decision-making process has been one of the most frequently studied research topics in the field of psychology and law.1 Despite its popularity in the laboratory, in the real world, trial by jury is a statistically rare event. Historical analyses of the jury indicate that at one time the jury decided far more trials than the approximately 8% of criminal cases that it is estimated to hear today (Green, 1985; Hans & Vidmar, 1986). Social and political changes, greater judicial control over the jury, and the rise in plea bargaining have operated to reduce the use of the criminal trial jury. Likewise, most civil cases in the United States are resolved through settlement; only a small minority are decided by the jury. In other countries with a tradition of trial by jury, such as Great Britain and Canada, the use of the civil jury has been sharply curtailed.

The Gist of Juries: Testing a Model of Damage Award Decision Making

Despite the importance of damage awards, juries are often at sea about the amounts that should be awarded, with widely differing awards for cases that seem comparable. We tested a new model of damage award decision making by systematically varying the size, context, and meaningfulness of numerical comparisons or anchors. As a result, we were able to elicit large differences in award amounts that replicated for 2 different cases. Although even arbitrary dollar amounts (unrelated to the cases) influenced the size of award judgments, the most consistent effects of numerical anchors were achieved when the amounts were meaningful in the sense that they conveyed the gist of numbers as small or large. Consistent with the model, the ordinal gist of the severity of plaintiffs damages and defendants liability predicted damage awards, controlling for other factors such as motivation for the award-judgment task and perceived economic damages. Contrary to traditional dual-process approaches, numeracy and cognitive style (e.g., need for cognition and cognitive reflection) were not significant predictors of these numerical judgments, but they were associated with lower levels of variability once the gist of the judgments was taken into account. Implications for theory and policy are discussed.

Undergraduate Education in Legal Psychology

The purpose of this article is to describe ways that legal psychology can be introduced into the undergraduate curriculum. The extent to which undergraduate “psychology and law” courses are currently a part of the curriculum is described, and a model is proposed for coursework in a Psychology Department that might adequately reflect coverage of the legal area. The role of legal psychology in interdisciplinary programs and Criminal Justice departments is discussed. Sources for teaching aids and curricular materials are described.

Inside the Jury Room

From the start, the murder of the Scarsdale diet doctor captured the popular imagination. Partly it was the fame of the victim. Dr. Herman Tarnower, a respected internist and cardiologist, had become a household name with the 1979 publication of his bestseller, The Complete Scarsdale Medical Diet. Partly, it was sympathy for the defendant. Jean Harris, headmistress of the exclusive Madeira School for young women, had been Tarnower’s lover for 14 years. Some observers saw her rather than Tarnower as the real victim. Those who had experienced sexual jealousy, or had been subjected to contemptuous behavior on the part of a former lover, took particular interest in this case. The love triangle included the 69-year-old bachelor Tarnower, his long-time lover Harris, who was 57, and her younger rival, Lynne Tryforos, Tarnower’s nurse and secretary, a woman half his age, with whom he’d been spending more and more time. The public was intrigued too by the highly emotionally charged events leading up to the tragedy: Tarnower’s rejection of Harris, Harris’s depressions, drug-taking, and desperate attempts to regain his favor; Harris’s agonizing five-hour drive from the Madeira School in Virginia to Tarnower’s home in Purchase, New York, on the night of the fatal shooting.

Jury selection in two countries: a psychological perspective

A comparative survey of jury selection practices in Britain and the United States indicates that the two countries differ along a number of dimensions, including the emphasis on the jury selection process in the trial, the amount and type of information available about prospective jurors, and the frequency with which trial lawyers alter the composition of the jury. The probable impact of these differences is analysed by considering the importance of jury composition in determining a jury’s verdict, the effectiveness of lawyers in exercising their challenges, and broader effects of jury selection procedures in the two countries.