The social psychology of capital cases

Jury Psychology: Social Aspects of Trial Processes

Volumn 1, Issue , 2009, Pages 157-181

  Lynch, Mona ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876183296     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (98)

1. Allen, M., Mabry, E., and McKelton, D. (1998). Impact of juror attitudes about the death penalty on juror evaluations of guilt and punishment: A meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 715-31.
2. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
3. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).
4. Baldus, D., Woodworth, G., Grosso, C., and Christ, A. (2002). The Nebraska death penalty study: An interdisciplinary symposium: Arbitrariness and discrimination in the administration of the death penalty: A legal and empirical analysis of the Nebraska experience (1973-1999). Nebraska Law Review, 81, 486-711.
5. Baldus, D., Woodworth, G., and Pulaski, C. (1990). Equal Justice and the Death Penalty: A Legal Empirical Analysis. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
6. Baldus, D., Woodworth, G., Zuckerman, D., Weiner, N.A., and Broffitt, B. (1998). Symposium: Racial discrimination and the death penalty in the post-Furman era: An empirical and legal overview, with recent findings from Philadelphia. Cornell Law Review, 83, 1638-769.
7. Barnett, M., Brodsky, S., and Davis, C. (2004). When mitigation evidence makes a difference: Effects of psychological mitigating evidence on sentencing decisions in capital trials. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 751-70.
8. Bentele, U., and Bowers, W. (2001). How jurors decide on death: Guilt is overwhelming; aggravation requires death; and mitigation is no excuse. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 1011-79.
9. Blankenship, M., Luginbuhl, J., Cullen, F., and Redick, W. (1997). Jurors' comprehension of sentencing instructions: A test of the death penalty process in Tennessee. Justice Quarterly, 14, 325-51.
10. Blume, J., Garvey, S., and Johnson, S. (2001). Study: Future dangerousness in capital cases: Always "at issue". Cornell Law Review, 86, 397-410.
11. Booth v. Maryland, 482 U.S. 496 (1987).
12. Borg, M.J. (1997). The southern subculture of punitiveness? Regional variation in support for capital punishment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 25-45.
13. Bowers, W. (1995). The Capital Jury Project: Rationale, design, and preview of early findings. Indiana Law Journal, 70, 1043-103.
14. Bowers, W. (1996). The capital jury: Is it tilted toward death? Judicature, 79, 220-223.
15. Bowers, W., and Steiner, B. (1999). Death by default: An empirical demonstration of false and forced choices in capital sentencing. Texas Law Review, 77, 605-717.
16. Bowers, W., Steiner, B., and Sandys, M. (2001). Death sentencing in black and white: An empirical analysis of the role of jurors' race and jury racial composition. Journal of Constitutional Law, 3, 171-274.
17. Brewer, T. (2004). Race and jurors' receptivity to mitigation in capital cases: The effect of jurors', defendants', and victims' race in combination. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 529-45.
18. Britt, C. (1998). Race, religion, and support for the death penalty: A research note. Justice Quarterly, 15, 175-91.
19. Butler, B., and Moran, G. (2002). The role of death qualification in venirepersons' evaluations of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 26, 175-84.
20. Charrow, R., and Charrow, V. (1979). Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review, 52, 386-407.
21. Cochran, J., and Chamlin, M. (2006). The enduring racial divide in death penalty support. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 85-99.
22. Diamond, S., and Levi, J. (1996). Improving decisions on death by revising and testing jury instructions. Judicature, 79, 224-32.
23. Dillehay, R., and Sandys, M. (1996). Life under Wainwright v. Witt: Juror dispositions and death qualification. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 147-65.
24. Dorland, M., and Krauss, D. (2005). The danger of dangerousness in capital sentencing: Exacerbating the problem of arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking. Law and Psychology Review, 29, 63-105.
25. Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104 (1982).
26. Edens, J.F., Buffington-Vollum, J.K., Keilen, A., Roskamp, P., and Anthony, C. (2005). Predictions of future dangerousness in capital murder trials: Is it time to "disinvent the wheel?". Law and Human Behavior, 29, 55-86.
27. Edens, J., Colwell, L., Desforges, D., and 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, 603-25.
28. Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S., and Wells, M. (1996). Jury responsibility in capital sentencing: An empirical study. Buffalo Law Review, 44, 339-81.
29. Eisenberg, T., Garvey, S., and Wells, M. (2003). Victim characteristics and victim impact evidence in South Carolina capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 88, 306-341.
30. Eisenberg, T., and Wells, M. (1993). Deadly confusion: Juror instructions in capital cases. Cornell Law Review, 79, 1-52.
31. Elwork, A., Sales, B., and Alfini, J. (1982). Making Jury Instructions Understandable. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.
32. Filkens, J., Smith, C., and Tindale, R.S. (1998). An evaluation of the biasing effects of death qualification: A meta-analytic/computer simulation approach. In R.S. Tindale, L. Heath, J. Edwards, E.J. Posavac, and F.B. Bryant (eds) Theory and Research on Small Groups. New York: Plenum. pp. 153-175.
33. Finkel, N. (1995). Commonsense Justice: Jurors' Notions of the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
34. Finkel, N. (1996). Culpability and commonsense justice: Lessons learned betwixt murder and madness. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 10, 11-64.
35. Fleury-Steiner, B. (2004). Jurors' Stories of Death: How America's Death Penalty Invests in Inequality. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
36. Frank, J., and Applegate, B. (1998). Assessing juror understanding of capitalsentencing instructions. Crime and Delinquency, 44, 412-33.
37. Fukurai, H., and Krooth, R. (2003). Race in the Jury Box: Affirmative Action in Jury Selection. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
38. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
39. Garvey, S. (1998). Aggravation and mitigation in capital cases: What do jurors think? Columbia Law Review, 98, 1538-76.
40. Geimer, W., and Amsterdam, J. (1988). Why jurors vote life or death: Operative factors in ten Florida death penalty cases. American Journal of Criminal Law, 15, 1-54.
41. Government Accounting Office (1990). Death penalty sentencing: Research indicates pattern of racial disparities (Report to Senate and House committee on the Judiciary, 101st Congress, 2d Session). Washington, DC: Government Accounting Office.
42. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
43. Haney, C. (1984). On the selection of capital juries: The biasing effects of the death qualification process. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 121-32.
44. Haney, C. (1995). The social context of capital murder: Social histories and the logic of mitigation. Santa Clara Law Review, 35, 547-609.
45. Haney, C. (1997a). Commonsense justice and capital punishment: Problematizing the "will of the people". Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 303-37.
46. Haney, C. (1997b). Violence and the capital jury: Mechanisms of moral disengagement and the impulse to condemn to death. Stanford Law Review, 49, 1447-86.
47. Haney, C. (2005). Death by Design: Capital Punishment as a Social Psychological System. New York: Oxford University Press.
48. Haney, C., Hurtado, A., and Vega, L. (1994). "Modern" death qualification: New data on its biasing effects. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 619-633.
49. Haney, C., and Lynch, M. (1994). Comprehending life and death matters: A preliminary study of California's capital penalty instructions. Law and Human Behavior, 18, 411-36.
50. Haney, C., and Lynch, M. (1997). Clarifying life and death matters: An analysis of instructional comprehension and penalty phase closing arguments. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 575-95.
51. Haney, C., Sontag, L., and Costanzo, S. (1994). Deciding to take a life: Capital juries, sentencing instructions, and the jurisprudence of death. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 149-76.
52. Hoffmann, J. (1995). Where's the buck? Juror misperception of sentencing responsibility in death penalty cases. Indiana Law Journal, 70, 1137-60.
53. Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U.S. 163 (2006).
54. Kassin, S., and Sommers, S. (1997). Inadmissible evidence, instructions to disregard, and the jury: Substantive versus procedural considerations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1046-54.
55. Krauss, D., and Lee, D.H. (2003). Deliberating on dangerousness and death: Jurors' ability to differentiate between expert actuarial and clinical predictions of dangerousness. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 2, 113-37.
56. Krauss, D., Lieberman, J., and Olson, J. (2004). The effects of rational and experiential information processing of expert testimony in death penalty cases. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22, 801-22.
57. Krauss, D., and Sales, B. (2001). The effects of clinical and scientific expert testimony on juror decision making in capital sentencing. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 267-310.
58. Lieberman, J., and Sales, B. (1997). What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 3, 589-644.
59. Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. (1978).
60. Luginbuhl, J., and Burkhead, M. (1994). Sources of bias and arbitrariness in the capital trial. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 103-24.
61. Luginbuhl, J., and Burkhead, M. (1995). Victim impact evidence in a capital trial: Encouraging votes for death. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 20, 1-16.
62. Luginbuhl, J., and Howe, J. (1995). Discretion in capital sentencing instructions: Guided or misguided? Indiana Law Journal, 70, 1161-82.
63. Luginbuhl, J., and Middendorf, K. (1988). Death penalty beliefs and jurors' responses to aggravating and mitigating circumstances in capital trials. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 263-81.
64. Lynch, M. (2006). Stereotypes, prejudice, and life and death decision-making: Lessons from laypersons in an experimental setting. In A. Sarat and C. Ogletree (eds). From Lynch Mobs to the Killing State: Race and the Death Penalty. New York: New York University Press. pp. 182-209.
65. Lynch, M., and Haney, C. (2000). Discrimination and instructional comprehension: Guided discretion, racial bias, and the death penalty. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 337-58.
66. Lynch, M., and Haney, C. (forthcoming). Capital jury deliberation: Group effects on death sentencing, comprehension, and discrimination. Law and Human Behavior, 33.
67. McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987).
68. Miethe, T., Lu, H., and Deibert, G. (2005). Cross-national variability in capital punishment: Exploring the sociopolitical sources of its differential legal status. International Criminal Justice Review, 15, 115-30.
69. Montgomery, J., Ciccone, J.R., Garvey, S., and Eisenberg, T. (2005). Expert testimony in capital sentencing: Juror responses. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 33, 509-18.
70. Moran, G., and Comfort, J. (1986). Neither "tentative" nor "fragmentary": Verdict preference of impaneled felony jurors as a function of attitude toward capital punishment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 146-55.
71. Morgan v. Illinois, 504 U.S. 719 (1992).
72. Myers, B., and Arbuthnot, J. (1999). The effects of victim impact evidence on the verdicts and sentencing judgments of mock jurors. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 29, 95-112.
73. Myers, B., and Greene, E. (2004). The prejudicial nature of victim impact statements: Implications for capital sentencing policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 492-515.
74. New Jersey Death Penalty Study Commission Report (2007). Retrieved December 20, 2007, from www.njleg.state.nj.us/committees/dpsc_final.pdf (January).
75. Ohtsubo, Y. (2006). On designing a mixed jury system in Japan. In M.F. Kaplan and A.M. Martin (eds), Understanding World Jury Systems through Social Psychological Research. New York: Psychology Press. pp. 199-214.
76. Paternoster, R., and Brame, R. (2003). An empirical analysis of Maryland's death sentencing system with respect to the influence of race and legal jurisdiction: Final report. Retrieved October 15, 2006, from www.newsdesk.umd.edu/pdf/finalrep.pdf.
77. Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 (1991).
78. Pew Research (2005). Abortion and rights of terror suspects top court issues (full report). Retrieved October 10, 2006, from http://pewforum.org/docs/index.php?DocID=91.
79. Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
80. Robinson, R. (1993). What does "unwilling" to impose the death penalty mean anyway? Another look at excludable jurors. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 471-477.
81. Sandys, M., and S. McClelland (2003). Stacking the deck for guilt and death: The failure of death qualification to ensure impartiality. In J. Acker, R.M. Bohm, and C. Lanier (eds), America's Experiment with Capital Punishment: Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of the Ultimate Penal Sanction (2nd ed.). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. pp. 385-411.
82. Seltzer, R., Lopes, G., Dayan, M., and Canan, R. (1986). The effect of death qualification on the propensity of jurors to convict: The Maryland example. Howard Law Journal, 29, 571-607.
83. Smith, T. (1984). The polls: Gender and attitudes toward violence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 384-96.
84. Steiker, J. (1996). The limits of legal language: Decisionmaking in capital cases. Michigan Law Review, 94, 2590-625.
85. Sundby, S. (1997). The jury as critic: An empirical look at how capital juries perceive expert and lay testimony. Virginia Law Review, 83, 1109-89.
86. Thompson, W., Cowan, C., and Ellsworth, P. (1984). The effects of death qualification on jurors' predisposition to convict and on the quality of deliberation. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 53-79.
87. Thompson, W., Cowan, C., Ellsworth, P., and Harrington, J. (1984). Death penalty attitudes and conviction proneness: The translation of attitudes into verdicts. Law and Human Behavior, 8, 95-113.
88. Tiersma, P. (1993). Reforming the language of jury instructions. Hofstra Law Review, 22, 37-78.
89. Tiersma, P. (1995). Dictionaries and death: Do capital jurors understand mitigation? Utah Law Review, 1995, 1-49.
90. Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (1985).
91. Walton v. Arizona, 497 U.S. 639 (1990).
92. Weisberg, R. (1984). Deregulating death. Supreme Court Review, 1983, 305-95.
93. Wiener, R., Hurt, L., Thomas, S., Sadler, M., Bauer, C., and Sargent, T. (1998). The role of declarative and procedural knowledge in capital murder sentencing. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 124-44.
94. Wiener, R., Pritchard, C., and Weston, M. (1995). Comprehensibility of approved jury instructions in capital murder cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 455-67.
95. Wiener, R., Rogers, M., Winter, R., Hurt, L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., et al. (2004). Guided jury discretion in capital murder cases: The role of declarative and procedural knowledge. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 10, 516-76.
96. Williams, M., and Holcomb, J. (2004). The interactive effects of victim race and gender on death sentence disparity findings. Homicide Studies: An Interdisciplinary and International Journal, 8, 350-76.
97. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
98. Ziesel, Hans (1968). Some data on juror attitudes toward capital punishment (Monograph). Center for Studies in Criminal Justice, University of Chicago Law School.