Expert testimony and the effects of a biological approach, psychopathy, and juror attitudes in cases of insanity

Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Volumn 28, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 411-425

  Rendell, Jariel A ^a   Huss, Matthew T ^a   Jensen, Maren L ^a  

^a CREIGHTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AGENTS INTERACTING WITH TRANSMITTER, HORMONE OR DRUG RECEPTORS;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; AUTHORITY; BRAIN DISEASE; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT WITNESS; FEMALE; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; FRONTAL LOBE; HOMICIDE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MALINGERING; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PERSONALITY TEST; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOPATHY; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

ADOLESCENT; ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY DISORDER; ATTITUDE; AUTHORITARIANISM; BRAIN DISEASES; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; EXPERT TESTIMONY; FEMALE; FRONTAL LOBE; HOMICIDE; HUMANS; INSANITY DEFENSE; MALE; MALINGERING; NEUROTRANSMITTER AGENTS; PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT; SCHIZOPHRENIA; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77955669374     PISSN: 07353936     EISSN: 10990798     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bsl.913     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. American Law Institute. (1985). Model Penal Code and commentaries (Parti, §§ 3.01 to 5.07). Philadelphia, PA: Author.
2. Boehm, V. R. (1968). Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and their authoritarian personality: An application of psychological measuring techniques to the problem of jury bias. Wisconsin Law Review, 734-750.
3. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75-91.
4. Bornstein, B. H. (2004). The impact of different types of expert scientific testimony on mock jurors' liability verdicts. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 429-446.
5. Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, Y. S., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring (Revised edition). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
6. Carter v. State. 851 S.W.2d 390 (Tex. App. 1993).
7. Comprehensive Criminal Reform Act. (1984). U.S.C. Title 18,§17.
8. Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: Towards a hierarchical model. sychological Assessment, 13, 171-188.
9. Cooke, D. J., Michie, C., & Skeem, J. (2007). Understanding the structure of the Psychopathy Checklist vised: An exploration of methodological confusion. British Journal of Psychiatry, 190(suppl. 49), 39-50.
10. DeMatteo, D., & Edens, J. F. (2006). The role and relevance of the Psychopathy Checklistised in court: case survey of U.S. courts (1991-2004). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 214-241.
11. Edens, J. F., Colwell, L. H., Desforges, D. M., & Fernandez, K. (2005). The impact of mental health evidence on support for capital punishment: Are defendants labeled psychopathic considered more deserving of death? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23, 603-625.
12. Edens, J. F., Desforges, D. M., Fernandez, K., & Palac, C. A. (2004). Effects of psychopathy and violence risk testimony on mock juror perceptions of dangerousness in a capital murder trial. Psychology, Crime and Law, 10, 393-412.
13. Edens, J. F., Guy, L. S., & Fernandez, K. (2003). Psychopathic traits predict attitudes toward a juvenile capital murderer. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 807-828.
14. Feigenson, N. (2006). Brain imaging and courtroom evidence: On the admissibility and persuasiveness of fMRI. International Journal of Law in Context, 2, 233-255.
15. Gelinas, L., & Alain, M. (1993). Expertise psycho-juridique: Une evaluation de deux type de rapports et de leur influence sur la perception de jures potentials. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportment, 25, 175-192.
16. Gurley, J. R., & Marcus, D. K. (2008). The effects of neuroimaging and brain injury on insanity defenses. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 85-97.
17. Guy, L. S., & Edens, J. F. (2003). Juror decision-making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: Gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 215-237.
18. Guy, L. S., & Edens, J. F. (2006). Gender differences in attitudes toward psychopathic sexual offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 24, 65-85.
19. Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised Manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
20. Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Revised Manual (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
21. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2005). Structural models of psychopathy. Current Psychiatrie Reports, 7, 57-64.
22. Harris v. State. 84 P.3d 731 (Okla. Crim. App. 2004), ajf'd 164 P.3d 1103 (Okla. Crim. App. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 1717 (2008).
23. Irick v. State. 973 S.W.2d 643 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1998).
24. Jones v. State, 119 S.W.3d 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003).
25. Krauss, D. A., & Sales, B. D. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 267-310.
26. Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. (1993). Reliability and validity of the original and revised Legal Attitudes Questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661-667.
27. Lilienfeld, S. O. (1994). Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 17-38.
28. Louden, J. E., & Skeem, J. L. (2007). Constructing insanity: Jurors' prototypes, attitudes, and legal decisionmaking. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 25, 449-470.
29. Moriarty, J. C. (2008). Flickering admissibility: Neuroimaging evidence in the U.S. courts. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 26, 29-49.
30. Narby, D. J., Cutler, B. L., & Moran, G. (1993). A meta-analysis of the association between authoritarianism and jurors' perceptions of defendant culpability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 34-42.
31. Penry v. Johnson. 215 F.3d 504 (5th Cir. 2000), vacated by 532 U.S. 782 (2001).
32. People v. Danks. 32 Cal. 4th 269 (Cal. 2004).
33. People v. Peets. Unpub. (Cal. App. 2004).
34. People v. Scott. 148 Ill. 2d 479,594 N.E.2d 217 (Ill. 1992).
35. Perlin, M. L. (2009). "His brain has been mismanaged with great skill": How will jurors respond to neuroimaging testimony in insanity defense cases? Akron Law Review, 42, 885-916.
36. Pickel, K. L. (1998). The effects of motive information and crime unusualness on jurors' judgments in insanity cases. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 571-584.
37. Post v. State. 580 P.2d 304 (Alas. 1978).
38. Redding, R. E. (2006). The brain-disordered defendant: Neuroscience and legal insanity in the twenty-first century. American University Law Review, 56, 51-123.
39. Reider, L. (1998). Toward a new test for the insanity defense: Incorporating the discoveries of neuroscience into moral and legal theories. UCLA Law Review, 46, 289-342. (Pubitemid 128152389)
40. Roberts, C. F., & Golding, S. L. (1991). The social construction of criminal responsibility and insanity. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 349-376.
41. Shaffer, D. R., & Wheatman, S. R. (2000). Does personality influence reactions to judicial instructions? Some preliminary findings and possible implications. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 655-676.
42. Skeem, J., & Golding, S. L. (2001). Describing jurors' personal conceptions of insanity and their relationship to case judgments. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 561-621.
43. Skeem, J., Mulvey, E., & Grisso, T. (2003). Applicability of traditional and revised models of psychopathy to the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV). Psychological Assessment, 15, 41-55.
44. Skeem, J. S., Louden, J. E., & Evans, J. (2004). Venirepersons's attitudes toward the insanity defense: Developing, refining, and validating a scale. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 623-648.
45. State v. Ferrell. 656 So. 2d 739 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1995).
46. State v. Jensen. 153 Ariz. 171 (Ariz. 1987).
47. State v. Reid. Unpub. (Tenn. Crim. App. 2003), ajj d 64 S.W.3d 286 (Tenn. 2005).
48. State v. Steelman. 120 Ariz. 301 (Ariz. 1978).
49. United States v. Hinckley. 525 F. Supp. 1342 (D.D.C. 1981).
50. United States v. Weed. 389 F.3d 1060 (10th Cir. 2004).
51. Vardas v. Estelle. 715 F.2d 206 (5th Cir. 1983).