Who can be the trier of fact in a court?
The judge or the jury
Information in the case includes
- Testimony - exhibits - opening and closing statements - judicial instructions
Does the jury have to give a reason for a verdict?
no
Examination in chief
Examination by your own attorney
Cross-examination
Examination/questioning by opposing attorney
Name two vulnerable populations which might need special considerations in the court?
- Children - organised crime witnesses
How is the jury followed up following casting a guilty verdict in a capital case?
No follow up or therapy
Witnesses can only testify to what kind of evidence
sensory; as experienced by the witness themselves
Legal standard of experts
Involves three part test;
- The subject matter is complex beyond the understanding of the average person
- They must be qualified to speak on the issue
- Their must be scientific evidence of information presented by witness
Psychological Contribution - Experts
- Low level of public understanding or confusion about topic must be proven - academic qual - publication record
What four areas affect the decision making of juries?
- persuasion
- attitudes
- attributions of causality
- social cognition and decision making
Primary Attribution
When we are deciding on the cause of behaviour of others we have a tendency to make immediate judgements - explain others neg. behaviour through disposition and our own neg behav. through situational factors
Fundamental Attribution Error
people’s tendency to place an undue emphasis on internal characteristics to explain someone else’s behavior in a given situation, rather than considering external factors
Actor/Observer Bias
refers to a tendency to attribute one’s own actions to external causes, while attributing other people’s behaviors to internal causes
- Our pos behav - Dispositional
- Others pos behaviour - situational
- Our neg behav - Situational
- Others neg behav - dispositional
Old legal standard of insanity
- based on the McNaughton Ruling of 1848 - 3 elements: 1) defect of reason caused by disease of the mind 2) did not know what they were doing at the time 3) Inquiry carried out to determine whether defendant knew what they were doing
Modern legal standard of insanity
-at the time of the action - lack substantial capacity to appreciate his/her conduct as wrong due to mental disease or defunction
Psychological contributions to insanity
- assessment and ID of psychological disorders which pertain to the modern legal standard
What types of information about defendants regarding life events are allowed to be discussed?
- Culture - Subculture and personality
Which types of information about defendants reg. life events aren’t allowed to be discussed?
Lifestyle
Cultural information
- Tarasoff case - Foreign student killed gf in california and it was argued that his cultural was influential - judge decided this was admissable in court
Subcultural information
Alexander & Murdoch - difficult childhood defence
Personality information
Cavallo - Rape profile test
Lifestyle information
Not accepted as evidence in court, Zamorra tried this as a defence for murder (used to violent TV) - courts ruled that lifestyle is something people have control over and therefore it is not something that can be admitted
Victims and witnesses reliability of testimony is dependant on
- weapons focus effect - identification procedures - memory and lying and interview protocols used
Cognitive Interview
Most common interview protocol - cognitively return individual to the context of the event - do not bias them ask objective questions - and remain neutral
Head vs Heart Strategy
The attorney will aim presentation at the head (reasoning and cognition) or the heart (emotion) based on a number of factors
Factors affecting choice of head or heart strategy
Does the case contain more emotional content = heart
- Is the trier of fact the judge? (head) jury? (either - based on personality
- Jury demographic (profession
- Defendant/victim appeal - is the victim appealing (heart) if not (head)
Name the 6 tactics attorneys employ in presenting information
- use of vivid language
- loaded questions
- repetition
- subtle shifts in wording
- definition tactics
- establishing/disrupting connections in the stories being told
Loaded Questions
- planting a scene/information e.g ‘did you see the BROKEN WINDOW when you walked in?’
- Based on cognitive psych principles - phrasing of question
Vivid language
- Input vias - social cog model
- jurors give more cog weight to vivid infor
Subtle shifts in wording
cog and soc
- Subtle impact on meaning of sentence
e. g ‘sit with her’ vs ‘sit near her’
Repetition
Cog & soc
-mere exposure effect
Definitions
- Words/images to ‘assist’ the jurors with how to define ambiguous concepts
-Establishing/disrupting narrative flow
- Assist jurors to see story in smooth narrative OR disrupt narrative
Juror Instructions Legal Standard
Provided by presiding magistrate at the conclusion of presentation of evidence - meant to provide jury with
- framework to guide deliberations/decisions (least likely understood)
- Clarification of legal terms
- Summary of evidence (most likely to be understood)
Psychological contributions to juror instructions
- Timing of instructions - comprehension of instructions - nullification instructions
Timing of instructions for jurors
Cog research shows importance of pre-task instructions; would be better to have instructions at start of proceedings rather than end
Nullification Instructions
- Research indicates the inclusion of a nullification instruction impacts decisions especially cases involving controversial social issues
