Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
73 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
competence
|
capacity to function meaningfully and knowingly within court
|
|
adjudicative compretence
|
competence to stand trial, competence to plead guilty
|
|
Dusky Standard
|
Was usually used for both – “sufficient abilityto consult w/ an attorney, with a degree of understanding, and rational andfactual understanding of the proceedings against him.”
|
|
issue of competence can be raised by
|
prosecutor, defense, or judge
historically by prosecutor |
|
Jackson v. Indiana 1972
|
thosecommitted for being incompetent to stand trail, cannot be keptinstitutionalized for more than a reasonable amount of time
|
|
competence is raised in about ___% of felony cases by defense
|
15
|
|
IFI, IFI-R
|
semi structured
|
|
FIT-R
|
shorter, structured
|
|
MacSAC-CD
|
uses vignette, then asks question, long
|
|
MacCAT-CA
|
still uses vignette, shorter than MacSAC
|
|
ECST-R
|
developed w/ more legal input, uses dusky standard, semi-structured, considers malingering
gaining popularity |
|
CAST-MR
|
specifically for individuals w/ low IQ
lower reading level, less complicated questions |
|
malingering
|
many try (18%), few succeed
M-FAST |
|
formal competency hearing
|
ultimate opinion testimony: final statement, final clinical decision
|
|
Medina v. Cali 1992
|
a state can require a defendant to prove that he/she is incompetent by a preponderance of the evidence
|
|
Cooper v. Oklahoma 1996
|
requiring a higher standard of proof (clear and convincing) denies too many claims
clear and convincing = below a reasonable doubt but more than preponderance of the evidence |
|
Stare v. Hayes 1978
|
individuals can appear at court unmediated, aslong as they are medicated when evaluated for competence
|
|
Riggins v. Nevada 1993
|
cannotforce medication unless it can be shown that the individual is a harm tothemselves or others w/o the medication
|
|
Sellsv. US 2003
|
government can administer meds to force competence but must be 1)medically appropriately, 2) unlikely to have side effects that restrictstrial’s fairness, and 3) necessary to further government trial-relatedinterests
|
|
Farettav. Cali 1975
|
constitutional right to represent self
Thepresiding judge must be convinced of adjudicative competence, that the waiveris voluntary and with understanding |
|
cases regarding competence to refuse insanity plea
|
Whalen and Frendak
|
|
diff b/w competence and insanity
|
competence says nothing about responsibility
competence refers to mental abilities during proceedings insanity judges whether or not responsible insanity judges mental state at time of offense |
|
mens rea
|
guilty mind
|
|
M'Naghten rule
|
did not know what they were doing or did not know what they were doing was wrong
|
|
Brawner rule
|
defendant is not responsible if: As a result of mental disease or defect, lackscapacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform itto the law
|
|
how brawner differs from m'naghten
|
“Appreciate" - incorporates both emotional andcognitive elements
Doesn’t require a total lack of understandingwhat you’re doing is wrong Cognitive and volitional (willfulness) elements |
|
Insanity Defense reform act 184
|
Responseto John Hinckley Jr.’s trial (tried to kill Reagan to impress Jody Foster)
Found not guilty by reason of insanityo Eliminatedwillfulness aspect (Couldn’t control, had no choice) Prohibitedultimate opinion testimony on insanity Burdenof proof is on the defendant; must be clear and convincing |
|
revisions and reforms to insanity defense
|
1) Guilty but mentally ill: same sentence as guilty verdict but start in hospital w/ treatment
2) diminished capacity: evaluates mens rea at time of the offense 3) elimination of insanity plea: jurors making judgments they are not equipped to make, psychiatric opinions regarded as fact |
|
Eddings v. OK 1982
|
requires that mitigating factors are heard in capitol sentence evaluations
|
|
Atkins v Virginia 2002
|
cant comprehend, cant put them to death
|
|
age of eligibility for juvenile transfer
|
14/15
|
|
why transfer juvenile
|
charged w/ homicide or other specific violent offenses, a history of prior juvenile offending
|
|
types of transfers
|
1) statutory exclusion: automatic transfer if aged 14/15 and committed a certain offense
2) judicial discretion: judges hears case and makes decision 3) prosecutorial discretion: prosecutor decides, jury doesn't have to hear |
|
Kalvin & Ziesel study
|
do judges agree with jury verdicts
looked at 3500 trials same verdict 75% 25% judge would have convicted replication found similar findings, juries more lenient |
|
venire
|
all potential jurors showing up at court house
|
|
jury selection act 1968
|
jury needs to be a cross section of the community --> selection through driver's license and voter registration
excluded: deaf, blind, mentally impaired, non-english speakers, former felons, non US citizens |
|
assumptions of heterogenous jury
|
1) better fact finders
2) more likely to contain minority memebers |
|
voir dire
|
"to tell the truth"
actual jury selection process - used to rule out biases |
|
Dennis v. US 1966
|
the right to question potential jurors about bias
|
|
peremptory challenges
|
--exclude jury member w/o reason, limited
--defense gets more --unlimited challenges for cause --can be misused |
|
goals of voir dire (US v. Dellinger 1972)
|
--determine whether a juror meets statutory requirements
--discover grounds for challenge for cause --discover info that could lead to logical use of peremptory challenge |
|
Batson v. Kentucky 1986
|
--AfAm convicted
--prosecutor used most peremptory challenges to dismiss all black jurors --denied 14th amendment (equal protection under law) --> cant be dismissed based on race |
|
Batson Challenge
|
suspicion that peremptory challenge is based on race
Batson challenge --> attorney must give reason |
|
Holland v. Illinios
|
principle of representatives: does not have to be own race that is excluded
|
|
JEB v. Alabama 1994
|
extended batson decision to gender
|
|
lawyers choosing jurors
|
lawyers rely on implicit personality theories - most likely to focus on stereotypes
|
|
similarity leniency hypothses
|
lawyers dont want to choose a juror that is similar to defendant more similar = more lenient
|
|
important characteristics of jurors
|
1) internal/external locus of control
---high internal - often more harsh 2) authoritarianism: trust in authority, more likely to convict 3) need of cognition: need info to make decisions, high - less likely to be swayed by irrelevant evidence, more technical more persuaded |
|
scientific jury selection
|
use of trial consultant - focus groups, shadow groups, ratings of prospective jurors, community surveys
|
|
pretrial publicity
|
clash of 1st (free speech) and 6th amendments (fair trial)
|
|
US v. Burr 1807
|
jurors are not required to have no knowledge or preconception, only to be fair
|
|
Irvin v. Dowd 1961
|
1st case the SC struck down the conviction on the grounds of pretrial publicity
|
|
Rideau v. Louisiana 1963
|
exposure to news that included information strongly pointing towards guilt was in violation of due process
|
|
Shep v Maxwell 1966
|
judges should delay trail or relocate when prejudicial news is prevalent
|
|
Nebraska press association v Stuart 1976
|
a trial judge can only issue a gag order if they can prove that the news would prevent fair trial
|
|
richmond newspapers Inc. v. Virginia 1980
|
the press cannot be barred from attending and reporting a trial
|
|
Gannett Co. v. DePasquale 1979
|
press can be excluded from pretrial hearings b/c of the potentially prejudicial information that may not even be included in trial
|
|
Mu'Min v. Virginia 1991
|
defense does not have the right to ask jurors about the specifics of any pretrial publicity
|
|
what to do about pretrial publicity
|
1) continuance: stop for a period of time (violates right to speedy trial)
2) expanded voir dire: did not influence verdicts 3) judicial instructions: reactance effect - asking to not think about publicity, prompts you to think about it. instead make people suspicious of media's motives 4) import jurors: expensive, rarely used 5) change of venue: expensive, time consuming, most effective |
|
jury nullification
|
ignore the law and acquit - when defendant is legally guilty but morally right
|
|
Duncan v. Louisianna
|
juries have the right to decide a case as a matter of conscious
|
|
US v. dougherty
|
juries can use nullification but do not have to be told about it
|
|
benefits of jurors
|
--introduces public participation in legal system
--increases legitimacy of system --checks and balances --can nullify laws when judges cannot --educates public about the system |
|
disadvantages of juries
|
--may not be competent to actually be a juror
--invite prejudice and bias |
|
types extralegal information
|
--prior convictions - limiting instructions are ineffective
--multiple charges - more likely to convict when a charge added on --propensity and negative character evidence --opening statements: prosecution creates narrative, schema that is difficult to change --attractiveness |
|
reform for extralegal evidence
|
--videotape whole trial, edit out inadmissible evidence, then present to jurors (but people will be less motivated/captivated by something they are are watching)
--warn jurors about possible inadmissible evidence prior and during trial (inoculation effect) --secure a public commitment - each juror says they wont consider inadmissible evidence --> hypocrite if they do |
|
extralegal information in civil cases
|
determine liability (looking for blame)
decide on damages (amount of blame) |
|
determining liability in civil depends on
|
defendant's conduct
severity of injury is irrelevant |
|
assessing damages: anchor and adjustment
|
work off first number that we hear
the more a plaintiff requests, the more they receive |
|
juries and expert testimony
|
--evaluate testimonies fairly
--jurors are skeptical of experts --don't pay attention to details --unable to distinguish b/w valid and flawed research |
|
juries and judge's instructions
|
--instructions difficult to decipher
--spend 20% of deliberation time talking about instructions --judges unwilling to clarify --instructions at the beginning is most effective |
|
bias in juries
|
--juror bias: predisposition to interpret information based on past experience
--a common bias: pro-prosecution or pro-defense --pre-decisional distortion: distorting the evaluation of evidence to support verdict choice |
|
jury reforms
|
1) provide written summaries of evidence and testimonies - difficult, have to decide what to can and cannot be left out
2) giving instructions before/mid trial 3) provide written copies of instructions 4) allowing jurors to take notes - helps them remember better 5) provide evidence in exhibits in jury room |