1
Q
Rand Corporation Study
A
Major factor determining whether a case would be solved was the completeness and accuracy of the eyewitness account
Crimes most likely to be solved:
1) offender captured within minutes or
2) Eyewitness provides a specific relevant piece of info
If neither condition was met, chances the crime would be solved were less than 10%
2
Q
What is the single most frequent cause of wrongful convictions?
A
Eyewitness errors
Partly determined by the specific procedures used by the police
3
Q
As of April 1, 2016, there were ___ exonerations by the Innocence Project
A
337
4
Q
Innocence Project Data:Analysis of 325 cases in US where an individual convicted of a crime was later exonerated using DNA evidence found that eyewitness error was involved in ___ percent of the cases of wrongful conviction
A
72% The number of witnesses misidentifying the same innocent def: 62%- 1 witness 25%- 2 witnesses 13%- 3+ witnesses
5
Q
In __% of the misidentification cases, multiple eyewitnesses misidentified the same innocent person
A
38%
6
Q
__/336 exonerees served time on death row
A
20
7
Q
The avg length of time served by someone who has been exonerated through DNA evidence is ___
A
14 years
8
Q
Over ___ witnesses have misidentified innocent suspects
A
250
9
Q
__% of the misidentification cases where race is known, involved cross-racial misidentifications
A
40%
10
Q
In ___% of the misidentification cases, eyewitness testimony was the central evid used against the def
A
50%
No other corroborating evid, like confessions, forensic science, or informant testimony
11
Q
In ___% of misidentification, the real perp was identified through DNA evid
A
48%
12
Q
In at least ___% of the misidentification cases where a real perp was later identified through DNA testing, that perp went on to commit (and was convicted of) additional violent crimes (rape, murder etc) after an innocent person was serving time in prison for his previous crime
A
48%
13
Q
Estimator Variables
A
Environmental factors and intra-personal factors that cannot be controlled by the CJ system
14
Q
System Variables
A
Procedures used by the police and other members of the CJ system
15
Q
What are the 8 estimator variables
A
- length of time the witness saw the target
- stress
- weapons focus
- cross-racial identification
- witness’ mental state
- physical condition
- eyesight
- degree of violence
16
Q
What are the 3 system variables
A
- Type of questioning
- Nature of lineup or photo array
- Use of videotaping of procedures
17
Q
Problematic police procedures
A
Asking witnesses poorly constructed questions immediately upon discovering the crime
Allowing one eyewitness to overhear the responses of other eyewitnesses
Taking “spotty” notes of witnesses’ answers (and not recording the actual questions asked)
Failing to use any theory of a proper memory interview
Using investigators who have little training in interviewing or the psychology of memory
Conditions of the interview
18
Q
Bad conditions for interviews
A
Witnesses who are agitated and/or injured
Time pressures that demand rapid-fire questioning
Background conditions characterized by distractions, confusion, and noise
19
Q
T/F: Police receive strong training on how to interview witnesses
A
FALSE
Initial training programs often omit the issue, or cover it superficially; usually only covered in depth in elective specialized training
20
Q
Common errors in police training (3)
A
- interrupting the witness
- Asking too many short-answer questions
- Using inappropriate sequence of questions
21
Q
6 ways to improve the accuracy of witnesses’ info
A
- Slow down the rate of questioning
- Re-create the original context
- Tailor questions to the individual witness
- Make the interview witness-centered rather than interviewer-centered
- Be sensitive to the distinction between correct and incorrect responses
- Be sensitive to temptations to form premature conclusions
22
Q
3 methods of identification
A
- Lineup
- Photo array (aka- photo spread or “mug book”; now more frequently used than lineups)
- Showup (one-person lineup)
23
Q
2 goals of lineups and photo arrays
A
- Determine whether a suspect is the perp observed by the witness
- assess the reliability of a witness
24
Q
Advantages of photo arrays (5)
A
- Immediate availability and selection of foils
- Portability
- Control over the behavior of those involved
- Opportunity for the witness to examine a photo array repeatedly and over extended lengths of time
- Less eyewitness anxiety
25
6 common errors in lineups/photo arrays
1. implying that the criminal is definitely in the lineup
2. Pressuring the witness to make a choice
3. Asking the witness specifically about the suspect, and not the foils
4. Encouraging a loose recognition threshold (eg asking if anyone seems "familiar")
5. Making it obvious which is the suspect
6. Confirming that a witness's choice is "right"
26
What is the solution to the problem of dangers that exist from the ways the police sometimes use lineups and photo arrays?
Give the suspect a right to counsel during a lineup
27
Frequency that witnesses choose innocent people in a lineup
When warned that the perp may not be present- 33%
| When actual culprit not in lineup and witness not told that perp may not be present- 78%
28
Well's operational rules (6)
1. The person who conducts the lineup or photo array should not be aware of which one is the suspect
2. Eyewitnesses should be told explicitly that the suspect may not be in the lineup/photo array
3. The suspect should not stand out or be different in any way
4. A clear statement should be taken from the eyewitness at the time of the ID and prior to any feedback regarding his/her confidence
5. Present individuals or photographs sequentially rather than simultaneously
6. The identification process should be videotaped
29
What are some problems for children as eyewitnesses?
1. heightened suggestibility
| 2. Increased errors
30
Research indicates that jurors often err in what two respects?
1. They overestimate the level of accuracy of eyewitnesses
| 2. They do not appreciate the impact of either estimator or system factors on reducing accuray
31
LOOK OVER COMMON JUROR MISCONCEPTIONS
OK
32
LOOK OVER RELIABLE EYEWITNESS RESEARCH
OK
33
Trial Consultants
Usually hired by an attorney
Occasionally appointed by the court
Many (but not all) are trained in psych (about 40% trained in other disciplines)
No state currently licenses or certifies trial consultants
May be more accurately called "litigation consultants"
Most commonly are utilized in civil cases
34
Areas of consultation (4)
1. Change-of-venue requests
2. witness prep
3. organizing the case
4. jury selection
35
Ethical issues of consultants
Misinterpreting one's qualifications
Promising too much
Failing to acquire informed consent from involved parties
Violation of confidentiality
36
ASTC
American Society of Trial Consultants
They've developed a brief code of professional standards
Currently no enforcement or regulatory board
37
Change of venue requests
Pretrial publicity can ruin a def's chance for a fair trial
Studies with mock juries suggest an increase in conviction rate from 45-49%
Change of venue requests are almost always submitted by the defense
38
2 critical issues for change of venue
1. has the pretrial publicity been pervasive?
| 2. Has the pretrial publicity been one-sided enough to bias potential jurors
39
Gauging impact of pretrial publicity
Community surveys:
Used to determine the extent of knowledge of that case and prejudgment about guilt
Responses from potential jurors in the jurisdiction compared with respondents in another demographically similar jurisdiction
40
ASTC standards for community surverys
Length- ideally 10 minutes
Sample size- ideally 400 respondents
Callbacks- recommended 3-4 callbacks for each uncompleted call
Question wording- avoid open-ended questions
Test Validity of the responses- ex: ask questions about fictional cases
41
Consultant's activities
Community Surveys- considered "attorney work product"- privileged info
Affidavit- sworn statement prepared for the court by the psychologist if the research suggests extensive knowledge of bias about the case
Testifying
42
Testifying aspect of consultant activities
1. survey results and conclusions- % of respondents who heard about the case; # of respondents leaning towards "guilty"; extent of knowledge and details of the crime
2. Research concluding that prior info can influence verdicts
3. Research concluding that jurors often cannot put aside prior info
4. Comparison of results with other similar surveys
43
Sequestered Voir Dire
Alternative to a change of venue
The judge questions each prospective juror individually in his chambers
The judge inquires about biases (problem: pretrial publicity can affect verdicts even when jurors say they are not biased)
44
Irvin v Dowd (1961)
USSC said that statements of impartiality "can be given little weight"- aka people are biased even if they say they aren't
45
3 conclusions from studying potential jurors
1. More knowledge about a case is usually associated with increased assumptions of guilt
2. The more media sources a respondent attends to, th emore knowledge they have about a case
3. Respondent's knowledge of a case was NOT related to their reported ability to be impartial- those respondents who believed there was a lot of evid against this person were the most likely to believe they could be fair and impartial
46
Detrimental pretrial publicity includes:
1. reports of involvement in past crimes
2. reports of prior convictions
3. confessions by the def
47
T/F: Midtrial publicity can have prejudicial effects
TRUE
48
What is the focus of consultants helping witnesses prepare to testify?
Communicating effectively
49
Witness preparation
Presentation style- reducing expressions of arrogance and defensiveness
Analyzing substance- eg. powerless speech
Videotaping for feedback
Acquiring feedback from mock jurors
Bolstering confidence
50
What is proper witness prep and what is not?
Some people question whether witness prep is ethical
Most attorneys believe it is and some believe failing to do so is unethical
Most attorneys believe it is important to avoid telling the witness what to say, but the rest is a gray area
It can be difficult to influence a witness' credibility or effectiveness without influencing the content of their testimony
51
In organizing the case, consultants focus on what 3 aspects of trial presentation?
1. opening statements
2. presentation of evid
3. closing statements
52
Opening statements
Jurors organize trial info and give it meaning by organizing it into a narrative story (the juror can piece together his/her own story as the info unfolds, or the statement can provide one)
B/c the opening statement is not a part of the vid, some trial attorneys dismiss it as less important (MISTAKE)
Opening statements should provide a structure by which the jurors can organize the info presented
53
3 Defense approaches to the opening statement
1) tell their story
2) reconstruction strategy- challenging the prosecution's story by pointing out inconsistencies or missing elements
3) redefinition strategy- reconstruing one or more elements to offer a different interpretation of the prosecutions story
54
Important elements of the story
1. Narrative coherence- does it have an internal logic?
| 2. narrative fidelity- does it fit with their sense of reality?
55
2 options to timing the defense opening statement
1. after the prosecutions opening statement
2. after the prosecution finishes its case
Research shows clearly that the earlier, the better (initial info has a strong impact of attitude formation)
56
2 theories about making concessions
1. Stealing Thunder- present the damaging info first; may increase credibility; may also weaken the damage that occurs when the other side presents the info; based on "inoculation theory"
2. Sponsorship Theory- Do NOT reveal the negative info; assumes jurors evaluations of evid are influenced by who presents (sponsors) it; revealing it gives credence to the info that the other side would not have in presenting it
MAKING CONCESSIONS EARLY ON DOES APPEAR TO WEAKEN THE DAMAGE WHEN THE OTHER SIDE EMPHASIZES THE SAME MATTER LATER IN TRIAL
57
Serial position effect
People learn and remember the first and last items in a series better than those in the middle (primacy effect and recency effect)
58
Primacy Effect
The tendency for the 1st items presented in a series to be better remembered as more influential
Evid presented first is potentially influential because it alters the way the listener perceives and incorporates later evid
59
Recency Effect
The most recently presented info will most likely be remembered best
The final witness and evid by being the most recent may be powerful
The longer the trial the greater the likelihood d a recency effect
60
Expository Approach to closing statements
Comparing 2 opposing views on the same issue
Why is our evid/story better than theirs
Another benefit is that this info will help sympathetic jurors argue with opposing jurors
61
Jury selection goal
seat a jury who will at least be open minded about (if not sympathetic to) their case
62
Systematic jury selection
Involves scientific procedures
| Many attorneys use anecdotal data, assumptions, and stereotypes the effectiveness of which have not been researched
63
Prosecution jury stereotypes
old, married, employed, educated
64
Defense jury stereotypes
Member of helping professions
| Minorities
65
Systematic (scientific) v implicit
Out of court investigations
Community surveys
Focus groups
mock juries
66
2 approaches to jury selection
1. Case-specific approach
| 2. Focus on broad attitudes and traits
67
Case specific approach
Looks at facts of the case and tries to develop some measurable characteristics of jurors that would be related to their verdicts
68
Broad attitudes and traits approach
Juror bias- every juror verdict is inflenced by idiosyncratic assumptions that stem from personal experience
All biases favor either the prosecution/plaintiff or defense
69
2 concepts that are the primary focus of measures of juror bias in criminal cases
1. authoritarianism
| 2. pro-prosecution v pro-defense orientation
70
Legal Attitudes Questionairre (LAQ)
First systematic measure for assessing juror bias
Published in 1968
Measured tendency toward authoritarianism
71
Juror Bias Scale
Measures bias to favor the prosecution or defense
Measures both areas of bias
Judgements of guilt result when a juror's probability of commission estimate exceeds his or her reasonable doubt criterion
Based on the idea that jruors make decisions in criminal cases based on their judment of two issues
1. probability of commission- how likely is it that the def was the person who committed the crime?
2. Reasonable doubt- the threshold of certainty deemed necessary for conviction; NOT operationally defined; different jurors apply their own standards
72
General Attitudes in civil cases
```
Litigation Explosions (too many lawsuits)
Attitudes toward standard of care
Attitudes toward risk-taking
Attitudes about personal responsibility
Attitudes about corporate responsibility
```
73
What happens when trial consultants and attorney disagree about how best to use peremptory challenges?
Litigation CONSULTANT- no power, they're just a consultant, so it's up to the attorney
74
Does scientific jury selection work?
Difficult to assess
Legal psychologists are divided about its effectiveness
Quality of evid remains the clearest determinant of jury verdicts
Often in a civil case, the evid for the 2 sides is nearly equal
Givent hat cases are close, even subtle improvements through jury selection can be enough to favorably tip the balance
75
Jury Tampering
Contacting prospective jurors outside of the courtroom
This includes merely following the jurors
Even if not trying to influence
Contempt of court
76
Jury Investigations
often invasion of privacy
courts accept this to some degree to avoid bias
out-of-court investigations
77
Supplemental juror questionnaires
Questions prospective jurors answer in writing before jury selection
Issues of consent can still arise
Fed. courts have recommended their use in highly publicized cases
78
Advantages of supplemental questionnaires
1. Save time during voir dire
| 2. give both sides equal access to info (resolves the problem of discovery)
79
Is it wrong for one side to employ a litigation consultant when the other side cannot or does not?
Not illegal
Generally assumed that 2 sides are "never perfectly equal in abilities or resources"
Currently, there is no clear and convincing evid of hte ability of scientific jury selection to affect verdicts
Advocates argue that the process is only a systematic version of what most trial attorneys do in a more subjective, less precise and less thorough manner
80
Bifurcated trial
2 parts to a trial:
Guilt-determining phase
Sentencing phase- life sentence or execution (jurors are asked to consider aggravating and mitigating factors)
81
Def is sentenced to be executed in only about __% of capital cases
20%
82
Common aggravating factors
```
murder of LEO
murder after kidnapping
heinous murder, torture
Def is dangerous
History of other violence
Murder for hire
Murder of 2+ people
```
83
Common mitigating factors
No significant prior crim record
youth
duress, coercion, or domination by another
extreme emotion
limited understanding of the consequences of the act
Mental retardation
Other factors the def believes are mitigating
84
Possible roles of forensic psychoogists in capital cases
1 Assess defs competency to stand trial
2 assess mental status at time of offense
3 conduct community survey as part of change of venue request
4 death-qualification of jury/jury selection
5 perform mitigation assessment (childhood experiences, psychological factors)
6 evaluate def's competency for execution
85
Atkins v Virginia
SC rules 6-3 that executions of people with mental retardation violates 8th amend and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment
86
Stanford v Kentucky (1989)
SC upheld death sentence given to 16 yo
87
Roper v Simmons (2005)
SC declared execution of juveniles unconstitutional
88
Witherspoon v Illinois (1968)
Exclude only those potential jurors that indicate unequivocal opposition to the death penalty
89
T/F: research has shown that death-qualified juries are more conviction prone
TRUTH
90
Lockhart v McCree (1986)
upheld use of death-qualified juries
91
Is death penalty a deterrent?
overall,s tates with death penalty have higher murder rates than states without it
Also execution costs more than housing a convicted criminal for life
92
Brutalization effect
executions usually stimulate a small increase in murders (1-4 murders) in the weeks following an execution, esp. highly publicized executions
Forensic Psych
flashcards
Decks in class (4)
# Cards
