Past Facts: Defendants

Question 1

Poddar

Answer 1

i. Defense used anthropologist to argue that Indian cultural differences (untouchable effect) led to violence
ii. Not allowed to cross-cultural differences

iii. But a psychologist/psychiatrist could testify
1) But defense didn’t want anthropologist filtered through shrinks

Question 2

Aphaylath

Answer 2

i. Laotian who killed wife out of jealousy

ii. Expert witness can testify to culture without knowing defendant

Question 3

Dang Vang v. Vang Xiong X. Toyed

Answer 3

i. Vang and Moua (Ps) are Hmong immigrants from Laos

ii. Raped by Vang (state employee with employment power)
1) Women continue to interact with rapist
2) Expert witness allowed to establish that Laotian women in awe of persons in government positions

Question 4

Wu

Answer 4

i. Chinese woman (estranged wife) strangles son and tries to kill herself after finding out husband was having affair and mother in law (good to son) was dying
ii. Jury given instructions to take cultural issues into consideration of mental state

Question 5

Kargar

Answer 5

i. Afghani man kisses son’s penis; charged with gross sexual assault
1) Pictures of this act in family photo album

ii. Recent Afghani immigrants/experts testify that this is a common act in Afghanistan
iii. Case dismissed under de minimis statute

Question 6

US v. Alexander and Murdoch

Answer 6

i. 2 black men shoot marines in a bar
ii. Dissent (Bazelon)-

iii. Dissent: why draw the line at mental illness?
1) Poverty correlates with crime at much higher rate than mental illness

iv. 4 options for court:
1) Insanity defense
2) Release defendants due to social deprivation, despite dangerousness
3) Expand insanity defense to include “rotten social background”
4) Preventatively detain defendants who are non-responsible due to social deprivation, if dangerous (mental institution)

v. Holding: not concerned with “rotten social background” (without mental disorder); concerned with crime
vi. Dissent: why draw the line at mental illness?
1) Poverty correlates with crime at much higher rate than mental illness

Question 7

NJ v. Cavallo

Answer 7

i. Rape
ii. Defense: expert witness says Cavallo doesn’t have characteristics of a rapist
iii. Holding: Defendant didn’t meet burden of showing scientific community accepts existence of identifiable character traits common to rapists

Question 8

Hickman

Answer 8

i. Professor says “wrongly decided”
ii. Holding: psychiatrist testimony for P declaring D showed character traits of rapist admissible
iii. Professor: character evidence can be brought by defense, not prosecution

Question 9

Loebach

Answer 9

i. Baby killed by father
ii. Battered child syndrome

iii. P: expert says battering parents have low empathy, self-esteem
1) Character witnesses corroborate this view of D

iv. Holding: “battering parent” testimony inadmissible, as D did not put his character in evidence
1) But doesn’t change the outcome of the case. Guilty.

Question 10

Self-Defense

Requirements

Answer 10

i. Imminent danger of bodily harm
ii. Reasonable amount of force
iii. Cannot be aggressor
iv. (some states) no opportunity for retreat

Question 11

Ibn-Tamas

Answer 11

i. Battered wife shoot husband

ii. Expert: doctor diagnoses Ibn-Tamas is classic case of BWS
1) Court: Dyas test (admission of expert testimony)
a) Testimony must be beyond the ken of average layperson
b) Expert must be qualified
c) Frye: methodology generally accepted
AND

Daubert: methodology scientifically valid
d) If admissible under Dyas, the probative value of the expert testimony must outweigh its prejudicial impact

iii. Holding: expert for DWS admissible; remanded

Question 12

Yusuf

Answer 12

i. Prosecution calls sociologist as expert on BWS
1) Can’t talk about D specifically (only pyschs can do that)
2) Answers hypotheticals instead
a) But these were just like facts of case

           3) Holding: limiting jury instruction allows this testimony to be admissible; conviction upheld

Question 13

Skinner

Answer 13

i. Aggravated assault/battery

ii. BWS used by state to prove crime
1) Character evidence

iii. Holding: error in allowing expert testimony but harmless to outcome; conviction upheld

Question 14

Jahnke

Answer 14

i. Father was murdered by son; father was terribly abusive

ii. Expert witness not admitted for lack of scientific knowledge (battered person syndrome not yet proved out by science)
1) D did not argue insanity; only “battered person”

Question 15

Nemeth

Answer 15

i. Son kills sleeping mom with compound bow
ii. Holding: expert testimony about “battered child syndrome” both relevant and reliable
1) Vacated conviction upheld; remanded for new trial

Question 16

Combat/PTSD

DSM-5 Cautionary Statement

Answer 16

i. A diagnosis does not necessarily imply an individual’s inability to control behaviors that may be associated with disorder
ii. But it may! Case by case. (ex. Being schizophrenic doesn’t automatically mean insanity defense)
iii. Military related PTSD may mitigate sentence
1) Veterans treatment courts

Question 17

Patty Hearst

Answer 17

i. Hostage turned bank robber

ii. Argued that she was under duress
1) Expert psychiatric witness allowed

iii. Jury found her guilty
iv. Sentence commuted/later pardoned

Question 18

Stanford Prison Experiment

Answer 18

i. Dr. Zombardo
ii. Used in Abu Ghraib case
1) Issue of external validity in Iraq

Question 19

Zamora

Answer 19

i. Used TV insanity as defense

ii. Argued for clinical psychologist to testify as expert that, broadly speaking, TV watching can lead to more violence
1) Bobo the clown experiment
a) Violent TV made kids more likely to hit inflatable doll
b) Maybe problems with external validity? Bobo doll meant to be hit
2) TV watching at 14 years old (study)
a) Leads to higher percentage of violence as hours go up

iii. Judge disallowed; expert not speaking about Zamora in particular or that TV watching led to specific crime