Juvies, Police Psych, Juries, Witnesses

Question 1

Two cases associated with juvenile justice rights reform

Answer 1

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)

Question 2

History of juvenile justice

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

Consideration for assessing juvenile risk for reoffending

Answer 3

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)

Question 4

Some risk of reoffending factors for juveniles

Answer 4

Earlier onset of aggression, school problems, personality traits (anger, impulsivity, lack of empathy), mental disorder, family conflict, aggressive peers, opportunity (access to guns)

Question 5

Actuarial risk measures for juvies

Answer 5

SAVRY
YLSCMI

Sex offending: ERASOR, JSOAP-II

Question 6

Considerations for juvenile waiver to adult court

Answer 6

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

Question 7

How states assess juvenile CST

Answer 7

Use same adult, Dusky standard
Few states explicitly consider immaturity

Nexus between incompetence and a mental or developmental disability still exists, FAC, RAC, CWC…

Question 8

Measures for juvenile CST

Answer 8

JACI

FIT-R is undergoing validation

MacCAT-CA also undergoing validation

Question 9

Juvenile capacity to waive Miranda

Answer 9

Still knowingly, voluntary, intelligent

Colorado v Connelly - voluntariness - be more mindful with youth due to susceptibility to adult influence

Question 10

Things to assess for in nearly all juvenile assessments

Especially posttrial, sentencing, rehabilitation, etc.

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Measures to assess quality of juveniles families

Answer 11

Family environment scale

Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation series

Question 12

Youth behavioral health screeners

Answer 12

Global appraisal of individual needs

Massachusetts youth screening instrument

Question 13

Kent v United States

1966

Answer 13

Granted due process rights to children being waived to adult court
(Access to counsel, access to their record, given a hearing)

Question 14

In re Gault

1967

Answer 14

Juvenile defendants face a loss of liberty when they are denied the same due process rights as adults

Question 15

In re Winship

1970

Answer 15

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…

Question 16

Breed v Jones

1975

Answer 16

Juveniles cannot be subject to double jeopardy

Tried in the juvenile and adult system - pick one

Question 17

Thompson v Oklahoma

1988

Answer 17

Can’t execute juveniles under the age of 16

Question 18

Roper v Simmons

2005

Answer 18

Can’t execute ANY juveniles

Question 19

GJI v State

1989

Answer 19

Adult competency protections don’t apply to juveniles

Question 20

Graham v Florida

2010

Answer 20

Juveniles charged with non-homicidal crimes can’t be sentenced to LWOP (8th amendment cruel and unusual punishment)

Question 21

Miller v Alabama

2012

Answer 21

LWOP for juveniles committing murder is cruel and unusual punishment

Question 22

Case law for juveniles concerning death penalty and LWOP

Answer 22

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

Question 23

Memory as trace evidence theory

Answer 23

A criminal event involving an eyewitness leaves a trace memory in the brain of the eyewitness

(Eh….)

Question 24

Misinformation effect

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Factors leading to an increased likelihood of forming a false memory

Answer 25

Young children, low cog abilities, elderly When a person of authority suggests memories

Question 26

Suggestive methods for obtaining memories for events

Answer 26

Asking people to imagine having such an experience Suggestive dream interpretation Hypnosis

Question 27

The problem with eyewitness identification

Answer 27

Often is considered direct evidence of guilt, but rates of mistaken identity remain very high

Question 28

Factors that lead to false identifications

Answer 28

Other race effect Structural lineup bias (witness described as black, only black guy in the lineup) Previous exposure to mugshots

Question 29

Ways to improve eye witness identification

Answer 29

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))

Question 30

Voir dire

Answer 30

Process to question prospective jurors about relationships, opinions, or experiences that may bias them against the litigant People in voir dire are called venirepersons

Question 31

General ways voir dire can take place

Answer 31

Judge can ask few basic questions in open court (not helpful for detecting bias) Extensive questioning privately at the bench Attorney surveys and questioning

Question 32

Two methods for removing jury members

Answer 32

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

Question 33

Challenges for cause

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Peremptory challenges

Answer 34

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

Question 35

Traditional v scientific jury selection

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Results on research related to jury selection

Answer 36

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

Question 37

Potential tasks that could be undertaken as a consultant

Answer 37

Case analysis and development Report and file review Identifying and retaining expert witnesses Assisting in direct and cross examination Preparing witnesses for trial

Question 38

Hypnosis cases

Answer 38

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

Question 39

Rock v Arkansas | 1987

Answer 39

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

Question 40

Variables shown to affect rates of mistaken identification

Answer 40

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.)

Question 41

Relevant judgement conceptualization

Answer 41

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)

Question 42

When is juror rehabilitation more likely to be effective

Answer 42

When their bias is from an external source (the media) rather than internal (race bias, etc.)

Question 43

Surveys used to predict jurors leanings

Answer 43

Juror bias scale Pretrial juror attitudes questionnaire Insanity defense attitudes revised Attitudes towards the death penalty scale

Question 44

Ake v Oklahoma (1985) | As it pertains to trial consulting

Answer 44

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

Question 45

Things to consider when performing an eval for high-risk occupations

Answer 45

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

Question 46

Employment evals and FOIA

Answer 46

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

Question 47

Qualifications for preemployment

Answer 47

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

Question 48

Per the ADA, when can an employer make medical inquiries and order an examination

Answer 48

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

Question 49

Importance of personality testing in employment evals

Answer 49

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”

Question 50

Personality measures for employment evals

Answer 50

``` NEO 16-PF MMPI* PAI* CPI* IPI* ```

Question 51

Fitness for duty evals

Answer 51

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

Question 52

Business necessity standard for fitness for duty evaluations

Answer 52

Requires objective evidence that job-related problems or safety threats AND the presence of a known or suspected mental condition

Question 53

Factors to consider with FFDEs or threat assessment

Answer 53

Duration of risk Nature and severity of the potential harm Likelihood that potential harm will occur Imminence of the potential harm

Question 54

Questions threat assessments should answer in the report

Answer 54

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

Question 55

Job task analysis

Answer 55

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

Question 56

Suitability analysis

Answer 56

Degree of fit between the persons capabilities and the requirements of the position

Question 57

Threshold analysis

Answer 57

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

Question 58

Three types of opinions in FFDE evals

Answer 58

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