Test 2 Flashcards
What is the significance of Jenkins v. United States to forensic psychology?
allowed psychologists to serve as expert witnesses in matters involving criminal responsibility
Explain what is meant by the term jurisdiction.
authority
What are the four stages of the judicial process? (Be aware of tasks forensic psychologists might perform at each stage.)
- Pretrial
-psychologists frequently assess the juvenile and file a report (or testify) as to the juvenile’s level of development and ability to be rehabilitated.
-The psychologist is again called to perform an assessment when the mental health of a defendant is in question.
-If a defendant is subsequently determined not competent to stand trial, psychologists may be involved in treating the defendant to restore competency - Trial
-Serve as trial consultants to lawyers by helping in ongoing case preparation
-Expert witnesses - Disposition
-Evaluate a defendant’s potential for responding favorably to treatment
-Assess risk for violent behavior
-Offer opinions on types of rehabilitation strategies that could be used for a
particular juvenile - Appeals
-Some consult with attorneys when they are preparing their appeals
Know the types of challenge during jury selection.
Peremptory challenge: A rule that allows a lawyer to request the removal of a prospective juror without giving a reason.
Challenge for cause: Exercised by an attorney or judge whenever it can be demonstrated that a would-be juror does not satisfy the statutory or other requirements for jury duty.
Know the definition and purpose of amicus curiae briefs (and why a psychological association or organization would want to file them).
Amicus curiae briefs: Document submitted to appellate courts by outside parties to call
attention to some matter that might otherwise escape the courts’ attention.
Filing amicus brief:
-document filed by interested parties who did not participate directly
in the trial but either have a stake in the outcome or have research knowledge to offer the appellate court
-typically filed by organizations on behalf of their members
Know the definition and purpose of the voir dire (and distinguish it from the venire)
voir dire: A process through which the judge and attorneys question the prospective jurors and possibly disqualify them from jury duty
Venire: a pool or panel of persons from which a jury is chosen (called to come to court as a juror)
Distinguish between the Frye general acceptance standard and the Daubert standard for evaluating expert testimony. (Understand why the Frye standard lost favor and was replaced by the Daubert standard.)
Focus of Daubert guidelines: evidence must be relevant, reliable, legally sufficient, and the probative value must outweigh the prejudicial value of the evidence
General acceptance rule: Standard for admitting scientific evidence into court proceedings that allows it if it is generally accepted as valid in the scientific community (obtained using the scientific method).
Frye standard lost favor because it was considered too stringent, presenting an obstacle to the introduction of evidence that had not yet reached “general acceptance”
Explain the difference between actuarial predictions, clinical predictions, and structured professional judgment as they relate to assessments of risk (and pros and cons of actuarial vs. clinical judgment).
Actuarial predictions: based on statistics and data
Clinical predictions: rely on experience and judgment
Structured professional judgment (SPJ): Relevant to risk assessment, it refers to a mental health practitioner assessing the likelihood of violence by using clinical judgment aided by guidelines.
Actuarial assessment better than clinical assessment: Predictions of violence based on clinical assessment rely on clinical experience and professional judgment and have not fared well when compared to actuarial assessments.
Examine confidentiality and ultimate issue testimony as they relate to expert witnesses.
(Understand the role of expert witnesses in court.)
Expert witnesses testify to facts they have observed directly, to tests they may have conducted, and to the research evidence in their field and their opinions and inferences are not only are admissible but are also often sought by the courts (know more than judge and jury about a particular area)
Ultimate issue: Final question that must be decided by the court. For example, should the expert provide an opinion about whether the defendant was indeed legally insane (and therefore not responsible) at the time of his crime?
Recognize concrete examples of static and dynamic risk factors.
Dynamic risk factors: Those that change over time and situation. Examples are substance abuse or negative attitudes toward women.
Static risk factors: Aspects of a person’s developmental history that place the person at risk for antisocial activity but that cannot be changed. Examples are parents with a history of criminal activity or the person’s own early-onset of criminal offending. Also called historical factors.
insanity plea (NGRI)
takes place at the time of the crime
competence to stand trial
takes place at the time of the trial
List at least five [adjudicative] competencies in criminal suspects and defendants that might have to be assessed by forensic psychologists.
competency to stand trial, competency to plead guilty, competency to waive one’s rights, competency to serve as one’s own lawyer, competency to plea bargain
What are the requirements of the two-pronged Dusky standard?
Dusky standard:
The “two-pronged” Dusky standard holds that (a) defendants must be able to understand
and appreciate the criminal proceedings against them and (b) be able to assist their attorneys in their defense.
What are the legal burdens of proof in criminal and civil adversarial proceedings?
Beyond a reasonable doubt: The burden of proof that must be met by the government in all criminal cases.
Clear and convincing evidence: Legal standard achieved when the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable but does not reach the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt
Preponderance of the evidence:
1. Proof that one side in a legal dispute has more evidence in its favor than the other.
2. It is the standard required in most civil suits and may be relevant to criminal proceedings
as well, but not to establish guilt
What is the case law (legal precedent) dealing with forced medication of incompetent defendants?
Case of Sell v. United States (2003):
1. Charles Sell was a former dentist who was charged with fraud, and he had a history of
mental disorder
2. Court did not consider him dangerous, but they did approve the forced medication to render him competent to stand trial.
