The Trial Process I: Pre-Trial Issues Flashcards Preview

Intro to Forensic Psychology > The Trial Process I: Pre-Trial Issues > Flashcards

Flashcards in The Trial Process I: Pre-Trial Issues Deck (33)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

What is the over-arching goal of pre-trial procedures?

A

The individuals involved in the trial are able to understand the basic elements of the judicial process and that they are not impaired in their ability to competently participate

2
Q

Competence to stand trial

A

The issue of whether an individual is fully available to understand the situation

3
Q

Legal standard of competence to stand trial

A

Whether the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his attorney with a reasonable degree of rational understanding - and whether he has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings against him.

4
Q

Psychological aspects of competency (3)

A
  • Does the defendant understand the basic concepts related to the trial? - Do they understand the roles of the main actors in the trial? - Do they understand their legal/constitutional rights?
5
Q

Tests/assessments for competency

A

Competency Assessment Instruments (E.g. Competency Screening Test)

6
Q

Ultimate Trier of Fact

A

The entity that determines facts of a trial

7
Q

What is important to do when the jury is the ultimate trier of fact?

A

Ensure that it is an objective entitiy

8
Q

Areas of psychological research in relation to pre-trial issues:

A
  • Change of venue
  • Jury size
  • Jury selection
9
Q

What would require a change of venue?

A

If the trial is going to be subject to bias due to the location of the trial (e.g the defendant is too popular - like in Bernie)

10
Q

Legal standard for change of venue

A

In order to attain a change of venue, one must demonstrate that prejudicial pre-trial publicity or local knowledge and continuing passion must be so inflamed to make it nearly impossible to select an impartial jury.

11
Q

Psychological aspects of need for venue change

A
  • Empirical proof of prejudicial pre-trial publicity or local passion - Empirical proof of the impact of the above (on a jury) - Empirical proof of less impact at another venue
12
Q

Example of Paul Bernado trial

A

The trial was subject to a publication ban which applied to Canadian newspapers and media, and the venue was moved to Toronto from St. Catharines, where the murders occurred

13
Q

Tests/assessments of requirement to change venue

A
  • 5 step survey process
14
Q

Step 1 of the five step survey process in changing venue

A
  • 1 - get a reliable base rate sample: Sample of eligible jurors from community of interest
15
Q

step 2 of the five step survey process in changing venue

A

2 - reliable comparative sample - of eligible jurors from a random yet similar jurisdiction

16
Q

Step 3 of five step survey process in changing venue

A

3 - questions = asking questions similar to those asked within the legal context

17
Q

Step 4 of the five step survey process in changing venue

A

Analysis of data - quantitative and qualitative

18
Q

Step 5 of the five step survey process in changing venue

A

Evidence - introducing the results through an expert

19
Q

Issue of Jury Size

A

Ensuring that the size of the jury does not cause disadvantage to trial participants

20
Q

Legal standard for jury size

A

It must be demonstrated that the size of the panel successfully fulfills the ‘purpose of the jury’ (i.e, to act as a safeguard against prosecutorial and judicial bias or corruption)

21
Q

Psychological research on jury size (6 vs 12)

A
  • smaller juries are less likely to provide a context for effective group deliberation than larger juries
  • non-guilty individuals are more likely to be convicted by smaller juries
  • hold-outs more likely to change their vote without an ally and lower likelihood of ally in smaller jury
  • Smaller juries are less likely to represent a cross–section of society
22
Q

In relation to jury size in 1973 the colgrave vs battin trial did what?

A

Allowed 6-member jury for civil cases

23
Q

What did the Williams vs Florida trial in 1968 dictate about jury size re: criminal trials?

A

6-member jury allowed for criminal cases EXCEPT capital trials

24
Q

What did the Ballew vs Georgia (1978) case say re: jury size

A

5-member juries are unconstitutional because the size violates the purpose of the jury

25
Q

Jury selection issues

A

Ensuring that the members of the jury are not likely to employ ‘extra-evidential’ factors in their decisions

26
Q

Legal standard of jury selection

A

to assemble a representative cross section of the community AND ensure that any pre-existing biases or prejudices do not IMPACT their ability to fairly assess the evidence.

27
Q

The venire process

A
  • identification of potential jurors (e.g health card registration, electoral rolls)
  • Notification to attend including questions relating to exclusion (disqualification/exemption based on age, citizenship etc) = creation of venire (jury pool) - 150 people
  • Removal from the venire relating to excuses (e.g hardship, lack of comprehension of the language of court)
28
Q

The selection process: Voir Dire

A

Purpose is to examine those in the venire to select the final 12

  • “The visual examination” Voir Dire
  • Varies across jurisdictions (e.g australia, Canada, US)
  • Each side may ask for the removal of an individual as a juror based on a challenge for cause or through a limited number of peremptory challenges
29
Q

Challenge of a cause

A

Proof of a bias that would impede the ability to be objective

30
Q

Peremptory challenge

A

no basis for dismissal required

31
Q

Voir Dire and the death penalty (Witherspoon Excludables)

A

If the juror doesn’t like/agree the death penalty

32
Q

If someone agrees with the death penalty are they more likely to find someone guilty?

A

Yes

33
Q

Psychological research on jury selection includes:

A
  • Race - SES - gender - Attitudes and beliefs - Political beliefs - Cognitive factors - Experiences with crimes - Facebook and other indicators