Juvies, Police Psych, Juries, Witnesses Flashcards
Two cases associated with juvenile justice rights reform
Kent v US (1966) - Juvenile courts require due process rights when kinds may be waived to the adult justice system
In re Gault (1967) - Juvenile justice system protections should more closely resemble those of the adult system (notice of charges, right to representation, privilege against self-incrimination, right to confront and cross examine)
History of juvenile justice
1900-1960s - Enter school system, recognition of adolescence…welfare and rehabilitation were preferred over punishment (parens patriae via training schools and lengthy commitments)
1965-1990 - Kent and Gault cases, SCOTUS urges for reform and affording juveniles criminal protections
1990s - Violent crime increases and focus on punishment comes forward
2000s - Enter juvenile justice research, Miranda, competency, etc.
Consideration for assessing juvenile risk for reoffending
Use factors known to relate to juveniles
Recognize social context
Recognize difficulties in long-range estimates (most kids don’t continue to reoffend as adults)
Some risk of reoffending factors for juveniles
Earlier onset of aggression, school problems, personality traits (anger, impulsivity, lack of empathy), mental disorder, family conflict, aggressive peers, opportunity (access to guns)
Actuarial risk measures for juvies
SAVRY
YLSCMI
Sex offending: ERASOR, JSOAP-II
Considerations for juvenile waiver to adult court
Juvenile presents with significant risk of harm to others
Unlikely to be rehabilitated in the juvenile system
Has characteristics suggesting mature criminal characteristics (sophistication and maturity)
ALSO - Consider history of previous treatment, responsiveness to intervention, estimated time required for rehabilitation
How states assess juvenile CST
Use same adult, Dusky standard
Few states explicitly consider immaturity
Nexus between incompetence and a mental or developmental disability still exists, FAC, RAC, CWC…
Measures for juvenile CST
JACI
FIT-R is undergoing validation
MacCAT-CA also undergoing validation
Juvenile capacity to waive Miranda
Still knowingly, voluntary, intelligent
Colorado v Connelly - voluntariness - be more mindful with youth due to susceptibility to adult influence
Things to assess for in nearly all juvenile assessments
Especially posttrial, sentencing, rehabilitation, etc.
Intellectual and social development
Personality/possible mental disorder
Consider development, family, dx, race and gender (for the purpose of norm groups), and knowing what rehabilitation exists in the community
Measures to assess quality of juveniles families
Family environment scale
Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation series
Youth behavioral health screeners
Global appraisal of individual needs
Massachusetts youth screening instrument
Kent v United States
1966
Granted due process rights to children being waived to adult court
(Access to counsel, access to their record, given a hearing)
In re Gault
1967
Juvenile defendants face a loss of liberty when they are denied the same due process rights as adults
In re Winship
1970
When finding a child guilty in a criminal charge, beyond a reasonable doubt standard is necessary (14th amendment due process)
Used to be preponderance…oops…
Breed v Jones
1975
Juveniles cannot be subject to double jeopardy
Tried in the juvenile and adult system - pick one
Thompson v Oklahoma
1988
Can’t execute juveniles under the age of 16
Roper v Simmons
2005
Can’t execute ANY juveniles
GJI v State
1989
Adult competency protections don’t apply to juveniles
Graham v Florida
2010
Juveniles charged with non-homicidal crimes can’t be sentenced to LWOP (8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment)
Miller v Alabama
2012
LWOP for juveniles committing murder is cruel and unusual punishment
Case law for juveniles concerning death penalty and LWOP
Thompson 1988 - No DP for kids under 16
Roper 2005 - No DP for juveniles period
Graham 2010 - No LWOP for non-homicidal juvenile crimes
Miller 2012 - No LWOP for juvenile crimes period
Memory as trace evidence theory
A criminal event involving an eyewitness leaves a trace memory in the brain of the eyewitness
(Eh….)
Misinformation effect
When people receive misleading information about an event after the fact, they are more likely to integrate that information into future recollections of the event
Factors leading to an increased likelihood of forming a false memory
Young children, low cog abilities, elderly
When a person of authority suggests memories
Suggestive methods for obtaining memories for events
Asking people to imagine having such an experience
Suggestive dream interpretation
Hypnosis
The problem with eyewitness identification
Often is considered direct evidence of guilt, but rates of mistaken identity remain very high
Factors that lead to false identifications
Other race effect
Structural lineup bias (witness described as black, only black guy in the lineup)
Previous exposure to mugshots
Ways to improve eye witness identification
Having people who look distinctly different (if someone is present who looks similar to the perpetrator, mistaken ID could happen)
Telling the witness the suspect may not be in the lineup
Going with the witnesses first, automatic, and rapid response
Doing a sequential lineup (was it this person (next) this person (etc))
Voir dire
Process to question prospective jurors about relationships, opinions, or experiences that may bias them against the litigant
People in voir dire are called venirepersons
General ways voir dire can take place
Judge can ask few basic questions in open court (not helpful for detecting bias)
Extensive questioning privately at the bench
Attorney surveys and questioning
Two methods for removing jury members
Challenges for cause - unlimited number but the attorney has to demonstrate how a jurors bias will impact their ability to serve
Peremptory challenges - limited number, can get rid of a juror for any reason
Challenges for cause
Removing a juror because there is a bias present that can impact their ability to be objective (unlimited number)
Must exclude jurors who don’t believe in death penalty from DP cases (“death qualification”)
You can do juror rehabilitation, but little research on the effectiveness of this
Peremptory challenges
Limited in number, can do this for any reason
Opposing attorney can raise a red flag if they feel you removed a juror who is a member of a protected group (e.g., race), in this case, the attorney wanting the juror out needs to prove this wasn’t their reason
Traditional v scientific jury selection
Traditional - goes off gut feeling, stereotypes, body language…
Not helpful or predictive, attorneys are not good at this
Scientific - utilize social science to guide jury selection, assess case-specific attitudes, view of legal system, culpability, demographic info
Results on research related to jury selection
Higher income, more prestigious education - more likely to convict
Outgroup biases for race and gender
Upper income and male - more likely to be persuasive, selected as jury foreman
Potential tasks that could be undertaken as a consultant
Case analysis and development
Report and file review
Identifying and retaining expert witnesses
Assisting in direct and cross examination
Preparing witnesses for trial
Hypnosis cases
State v Hurd - hypnosis doesn’t meet Frye
People v Shirley - can’t testify after hypnosis restored your memory
Rock v Arkansas - no blanket bans on hypnosis
Rock v Arkansas
1987
Placing blanket bans on hypnosis testimony is unconstitutional
Woman who shot her husband, hypnosis revealed she dropped weapon and it misfired…this was consistent with physical evidence
Variables shown to affect rates of mistaken identification
Suspect-bias variables - things that may account for why a witness selects an innocent person or doesn’t say IDK
General impairment variables - things that account for poor eyewitness performance generally (different race, intoxication, etc.)
Relevant judgement conceptualization
Eyewitnesses tendency to identify a person from a lineup who most closely resembles the eyewitnesses memory of the perpetrator RELATIVE TO the other members in the lineup
If the perpetrator is in the lineup, this works well…otherwise they’ll just choose the next closest person (no bueno)
When is juror rehabilitation more likely to be effective
When their bias is from an external source (the media) rather than internal (race bias, etc.)
Surveys used to predict jurors leanings
Juror bias scale
Pretrial juror attitudes questionnaire
Insanity defense attitudes revised
Attitudes towards the death penalty scale
Ake v Oklahoma (1985)
As it pertains to trial consulting
Deemed trial consultants to be active, affiliated members of the defense team
Also suggested you can serve as an expert and consultant in the same case, which many forensic psychologists respectfully disagree with
Things to consider when performing an eval for high-risk occupations
Understanding and experience working with people in that high-risk occupation
Familiarity with the essential functions of the position, and knowledge of the scientific literature on testing and screening for this type of job
Understanding of the limits of confidentiality and privilege, familiarity with state and federal issues that affect these types of evals
Employment evals and FOIA
Some jurisdictions say your evaluation file is fair game under FOIA
Some jurisdictions found public interest to overrule that
Fitness for duty applicants may have more access than preemployment evaluees given the nature of their interest in the outcome
Qualifications for preemployment
Generally murky, some exclude based on issues that prevent them from exercising the powers and duties inherent within the position
Other include a need for mental and emotional stability
Per the ADA, when can an employer make medical inquiries and order an examination
If they are first given an offer of employment conditioned on the results of an eval
Subject all potential employees to the same eval
If the information obtained in the eval is kept confidential through restricted disclosure and access
Importance of personality testing in employment evals
May want to use two, one to detect abnormal behavior, and one to assess for normal behavior
Compare validity between the measures
Known as “the basic model”
Personality measures for employment evals
NEO 16-PF MMPI* PAI* CPI* IPI*
Fitness for duty evals
For employees whose communication, behavior, performance…raises concerns about whether they can continue
(Different from preemployment in that way)
- Boss/company puts the employees mental health at issue
Business necessity standard for fitness for duty evaluations
Requires objective evidence that job-related problems or safety threats AND the presence of a known or suspected mental condition
Factors to consider with FFDEs or threat assessment
Duration of risk
Nature and severity of the potential harm
Likelihood that potential harm will occur
Imminence of the potential harm
Questions threat assessments should answer in the report
Does the employee have a mental or emotional disorder
What is the disorders impact on the job
Are there any significant impairments in their ability to perform essential job functions (and their cause)
What would it take to remedy these
Job task analysis
Stipulate the essential and less essential functions of the job
Need this for a preemployment eval especially, and also perhaps for a fitness for duty
Suitability analysis
Degree of fit between the persons capabilities and the requirements of the position
Threshold analysis
For FFDEs, did the employer meet the legal threshold for mandating a fitness evaluation
Business necessity standard may be met when the employer knows of the issues, has observed performance problems, and can attribute the problems to the condition
If the employee is in particularly dangerous works, performance decline needn’t required
Three types of opinions in FFDE evals
Fit for duty - no issues rendering the evaluee unable to carry out essential functions of the job, if problem is related to something other than a mental condition you can recommend other options (therapy, education, training, etc.)
Unfit for duty - if a good prognosis, you can make recommendations for remediation to fitness
Invalid evaluation - evaluee failed to cooperate with the evaluation, untruthful, or manipulated the findings and precluded a determination of fitness
