The Effects of British and American Trial Procedures on the Quality of Juror Decision-Making

Compared to American trial procedures, British procedures provide a less distracting environment in which jurors can process trial evidence. Relying on theories of persuasion, it was predicted that jurors viewing British procedures would be less affected by extra-evidentiary cues and would be more sensitive to evidence strength variations than jurors in American trials. Participants (N = 245) viewed a mock trial in which trial procedure, judge's nonverbal behavior, and evidence strength were varied. Participants judged the British procedures to be more civil and fair than American procedures but were less likely to find for the plaintiff. Although jurors recalled more trial facts when they viewed British procedures, they were not more sensitive to variations in evidence strength. There was some evidence that British procedures may increase the influence of judge's nonverbal behavior on juror judgments. The relative benefits of different trial procedures are discussed.     

Psychotropic Medication and Competence to Stand Trial

At any given time, as many as 15,000 persons are hospitalized for study or treatment regarding their competence to stand trial. Although most of the defendants found incompetent to stand trial "could rapidly be returned to competence and so maintained were the facilities and treatments of modern psychiatry made available to them", the impact of recent advances in psychiatry—particularly drug therapy—has not been fully absorbed by the legal system. Defendants restored to competence by psychotropic drugs frequently require ongoing medication. Some courts, mistakenly assuming that psychotropic drugs produce a "chemical sanity" that is unacceptable for participation in a trial, have adopted a practice—the "automatic bar rule"—of automatically prohibiting the return for trial of defendants under the influence of such drugs. A lack of statutory, regulatory, or judicial guidance leaves the question largely to the discretion of individual trial judges. This article critically examines the automatic bar rule in light of the effects of various psychotropic drugs and of the consequences of the rule both to defendants and to the state.     

Using British Trial Procedures in American Cases: A More Civil Trial?

A number of attorneys, judges, and legal scholars have asserted that the overly combative nature of American trials may impact on the actual quality of justice and bring the legal system into disrepute. In contrast, many who witness criminal and civil trials conducted in Great Britain are struck by the greater apparent civility of the courtroom atmosphere. Closer examination of the English system reveals seven specific procedural differences that may contribute to this perceived change in atmosphere. In this study, these procedural differences were manipulated and their effect on verdict and on perceptions of trial participants measured. In addition, opinions about these differences were elicited. Results showed that while the trial was perceived as more civil, and the judge viewed more positively, participants tended to indicate preferences for the American style. Implications of these results are discussed.     

Deciding mental retardation and mental illness in capital cases: The effects of procedure,evidence, and attitudes

Abstract

When finding unconstitutional the execution of defendants who were mentally retarded at the time of their crime in Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the US Supreme Court left the States to decide on procedures for deciding a defendant's mental retardation. This has and will lead to substantial variation, and will include juries being responsible for these verdicts. Two studies are presented that test procedural, evidentiary, and attitudinal effects on mock juror verdicts as to a capital defendant's mental retardation. Both studies show significant effects of procedural variables. Making the retardation and death decision at the same trial phase changed jurors’ interpretation of evidence, including severity of mental problems. Jurors were insensitive to differences in the burden of proof on mental retardation verdicts, although demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt may make jurors more sensitive to retardation evidence when deciding on a death sentence. Areas for future research are outlined.     

我国民事审级制度之重塑

现代西方各国的民事诉讼审级制度虽有一定差异 ,但在实质上体现着相同的原理 ,或相似的功能配置方式 ,即均为三审终审的金字塔型审判结构 ,且三审法院分别由初审法院、上诉法院和最高法院构成 ,各自承担着不同的制度功能。而我国现行审级制度在许多方面与这些原理是相悖的 ,并随着我国社会的变迁 ,在近年来面临着越来越严重的危机。笔者认为 ,基于现代审级制度的原理、西方国家的经验以及我国的现实国情 ,可根据以下思路重构我国民事诉讼审级制度 :针对不同类型的案件 ,建构多元化的审级制度 ;重新界定四级法院的性质和功能并据此对法院系统进行调整 ;在重构审级制度的同时 ,规范再审程序 ,严格控制再审程序的发动。     

Integration information in the judicial field: adding versus averaging models

Abstract

In the course of a trial, the main task that every judge or juror has to face concerns the evaluation of various pieces of evidence from a variety of different sources, with the aim of integrating such data into a single, final verdict. Algebraic models have tried to explain and predict decisional paths by identifying formal, mathematical combinatory rules. The aim of the present research was to test two main integration information models, namely adding and averaging, when combining items of judicial evidence. In the first study, we investigated how the probability of guilt varied as a function of the value of the pieces of evidence and information presented, in legal and not legal professional samples. In the second study, we analysed combinatory rules with more complex and realistic experimental material. Results indicated that participants summed the values of pieces of evidence in a linear fashion when they had to provide estimates of guilt. We found evidence of an adding rule among both legal and not legal professionals as well as in simple and more complex judicial cases, thus providing even stronger support for the use and the generalization of a summative model. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.     

USING A JURY SIMULATION AS A CLASSROOM EXERCISE

The authors' empirical research project considers the effects of differences in actual legal rules on jury decisions and, concurrently, gives business students the opportunity to participate in a realistic jury experience. The project uses actual trial evidence to produce a videotaped simulated trial presentation thereby insuring that the testimony, legal arguments, jury instructions and facts are realistic. To date, approximately 2,000 business students have participated in the simulation, under the supervision of 13 different Academy members at 11 different universities. This article describes the project and its curricular benefits within the context of an introductory course in law.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of European drug treatment programmes on reoffending

This article presents the results of a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of treatment programmes for drug abusing offenders in Europe, using stringent eligibility criteria to control for threats to internal validity. A literature search of approximately 37,000 titles revealed 15 sound evaluations from six countries, containing 3953 participants. There were significant positive overall effects of treatment on crime (d=0.47) and illicit drug use (d=0.38). Most evaluations originated from the UK and evaluated primarily substitution therapy-based treatment. Evaluations of other interventions were a minority. Our findings support the use of treatment programmes among substance-abusing offenders. However, these results are limited to a small set of programmes from very few countries. Therefore, sound evaluations on a range of treatments across Europe are needed.     

Treating incompetence to stand trial

InJackson v. Indiana (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that the primary justification for detaining defendants who are incompetent to stand trial is to provide them with relevant treatment. Unfortunately, the majority of forensic facilities place more emphasis on treating mental disability than on the specific symptoms that legally define incompetence to stand trial. Since this appears to be inconsistent withJackson, a study was conducted to test whether a treatment that deals with the specific symptoms of incompetence to stand trial would be more effective. As predicted, 21 patients who received such treatment showed significantly more improvement on an assessment instrument than 20 patients who received the more common form of treatment. In addition, more patients in the experimental treatment group than in the standard treatment group were able to be recommended to the court as competent. Implications are discussed.     

The Ecological Validity of Jury Simulations: Is the Jury Still Out?

Despite the need to assess the ecological validity of jury simulation research before generalizing from simulations to the behavior of real jurors, surprisingly little jury research has directly addressed issues of validity. The present paper reviews the extant research on two aspects of the validity question—specifically, research that has compared different samples of mock jurors, and research that has manipulated the medium of trial presentation. In addition, jury simulation research published in the first 20 years of Law and Human Behavior is analyzed with respect to these variables. The majority of simulations used student-jurors and presented the trial in written form. Additionally, the methodology of simulation research has actually become less realistic over time. However, this trend is not necessarily cause for concern, as a review of the literature reveals little research that has obtained differences between different mock juror samples or different trial media.     

Juveniles' Competence to Stand Trial: A Comparison of Adolescents' and Adults' Capacities as Trial Defendants

Abilities associated with adjudicative competence were assessed among 927 adolescents in juvenile detention facilities and community settings. Adolescents' abilities were compared to those of 466 young adults in jails and in the community. Participants at 4 locations across the United States completed a standardized measure of abilities relevant for competence to stand trial (the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool—Criminal Adjudication) as well as a new procedure for assessing psychosocial influences on legal decisions often required of defendants (MacArthur Judgment Evaluation). Youths aged 15 and younger performed more poorly than young adults, with a greater proportion manifesting a level of impairment consistent with that of persons found incompetent to stand trial. Adolescents also tended more often than young adults to make choices (e.g., about plea agreements) that reflected compliance with authority, as well as influences of psychosocial immaturity. Implications of these results for policy and practice are discussed, with an emphasis on the development of legal standards that recognize immaturity as a potential predicate of incompetence to stand trial.     

Predicting juvenile delinquency: A review of correlates and a confirmation by recent research based on an integrated theoretical model

This study is an exploration of the effects of setting cases for trial in a court that permits jury trials for juveniles. Although few cases actually go to trial, cases set for trial have an impact on juveniles and the court. The study reported here is based on data from a study of 710 youths upon whom delinquency petitions were filed in a suburban court in 1980. Of these youths, 94 had cases set for trial and 7 actually went to trial.

The first part of the article gives a brief historical perspective on the juvenile right to jury trial, discusses why defense attorneys set cases to trial, and describes some of the difficulties in measuring the impact of jury trials. The second part reports on the impact of trial setting in “Suburban Court” on case outcomes and case processing time. A partial correlation analysis shows that there is no significant association between setting a case for trial and either adjudication or final disposition, even when other factors are held constant. Setting a case for trial has a significant association with long case processing times, however. Cases set for trial take almost twice as long as other cases to move from filing to adjudication.     

Deficits in Behavioral Inhibition Predict Treatment Engagement in Prison Inmates

Many inmates do not respond favorably to standard treatments routinely offered in prison. Executive cognitive functioning and emotional regulation may play a key role in treatment responsivity. During intake into treatment, inmates (N = 224) were evaluated for executive functioning, emotional perception, stress reactivity (salivary cortisol), IQ, psychological and behavioral traits, prior drug use, child and family background, and criminal histories and institutional behavior. Outcome measures included program completion, treatment readiness, responsivity and gain, and the Novaco Reaction to Provocation Questionnaire. Relative deficits in behavioral inhibition significantly predicted treatment outcomes, more so than background, psychological, or behavioral variables, and other neurocognitive and emotional regulatory measures. Future replications of these results have potential to improve assessment and treatment of offenders who are otherwise intractable.     

Jurors' Use of Hearsay Evidence: The Effects of Type and Timing of Instructions

To examine the effects of curative judicial instructions on jurors' perceptions of hearsay testimony, mock jurors (N = 180) were exposed to one of six versions of a trial that included proprosecution hearsay evidence accompanied by either disregard or limiting instructions, presented either immediately after the hearsay, at the end of the trial, or at both of these times. Also included were control conditions in which (1) the information was presented as nonhearsay (first-hand), (2) no hearsay was presented, or (3) the hearsay was presented without instructions. Results indicated that neither the hearsay nor the instructions, regardless of their form or timing, affected verdicts. In fact, findings revealed that participants may have disregarded the hearsay regardless of instructions heard. There was some evidence to suggest, however, that evaluations of other admissible evidence presented by the hearsay witness were negatively affected.     

Law,Fact and Narratives in Ancient Rhetoric: The Case of the <Emphasis Type="Italic">causa Curiana</Emphasis>

The present article examines the role of narratives in rhetoric and jurisprudence, trying to understand the ancient system of ‘issues’ (staseis), an essential part of the rhetorical curriculum in antiquity, with the help of some basic notions of legal semiotics. After a brief reconstruction of the doctrine, I argue that narratives are essential to classical rhetoric, that the basic types of issues correspond to particular stories in and of the trial, and finally that the system of ancient rhetorical theory is capable of giving an account of the narrativisation of the pragmatics of the trial. Then I turn to a cause célèbre of Roman law, the causa Curiana, trying to show that not only the trial itself but also subsequent (ancient and modern) debates concerning the case were shaped by some grand narratives, and that stories about the trial are likely to return to the court, where they may become part of the story of the trial.     

Trial venue decisions in juvenile cases: Mitigating and extralegal factors matter

Purpose . This study assessed whether the characteristics of juvenile offenders and their victims affected respondents' decisions regarding whether a juvenile offender should be transferred to the adult criminal justice system. Method . Participants (N = 758) read a scenario about a juvenile accused of murder and decided whether the youth should be tried as an adult or as a juvenile. The age of the offender (11‐, 13‐ or 15‐years‐old), the sex of the offender, abuse history and victim type (neighbour or father) were varied. After indicating jurisdictional preference, participants read a series of statements (e.g. importance of punishment) and rated how important each was in their decision. Results . Significant main effects and complex interactions between defendant gender, age and abuse history were found. In general, younger defendants were more likely than older defendants to be recommended for juvenile court. Overall, juvenile offenders with a history of child abuse received less harsh verdicts. For males, a history of abuse affected decisions about trial venue and verdict both alone and in combination with other factors such as age, sex and relationship to victim. Results supported a mediational model in which extralegal and mitigating factors influenced the importance of a ‘just desserts’ orientation, which, in turn, influenced jurisdictional decisions. Conclusion . Despite a recent tendency for policymakers to pass legislation that requires more juveniles be sent to adult courts, the present study suggests that the public does not support automatic transfers to adult courts and that mitigating factors are important to their jurisdictional decisions.     

专家证据的价值与我国司法鉴定制度的修改

随着科学技术的飞速发展,专家证据在诉讼中发挥着越来越重要的作用。在英美法系国家,专家证据制度在专家证人资格规定上的广泛性和选任上的自由性,使其在适用上具有灵活性和实用性的特点,其详细而完备的专家证据可采性规则,更是司法经验的积累与法官智慧的结晶。英美法系国家的专家证据制度和大陆法系的鉴定制度,在近些年的改革中呈现出共同的趋向,如启动程序的多样化、过错责任的严格化和庭审对抗的强化,这为完善我国司法鉴定制度、准确适用新刑诉法中有关专家辅助人的规定以及充分发挥专家证据的作用开启了新的思路。面对我国司法鉴定中依然相当混乱的鉴定主体问题,构建鉴定人、专家顾问和专家辅助人三位一体的司法鉴定主体格局,或许是一条比较合理可行的出路。     

THE APPRENDI‐BLAKELY CASES: SENTENCING REFORM COUNTER REVOLUTION?

Recent Supreme Court decisions have extended jury trial rights and beyond‐reasonable‐doubt proof standards to certain sentence‐enhancement facts. The first two cases, Apprendi v. New Jersey and Ring v. Arizona, were narrow in scope and relatively uncontroversial. But Blakely v. Washington marked a substantial expansion of the rationale and scope of Apprendi, and threatened to invalidate entire sentencing reform systems, both legally‐binding guidelines of the type at issue in Blakely and it's sequel, Booker v. United States, and statutory determinate sentence systems like the one invalidated in Cunningham v. California. Each of these decisions has potential effects not only on sentencing severity and disparity in the cases controlled by that decision, but also on prosecutorial, legislative, and sentencing commission measures designed to comply with the decision, avoid it, and/or mitigate its impact. Field resistance and avoidance measures are likely to be stronger in jurisdictions where the existing sentencing system enjoyed broad support; in such jurisdictions, resistance may be particularly strong to the more controversial Blakely ruling. Impact assessments must therefore carefully distinguish the separate impacts of Apprendi and Blakely in each jurisdiction being studied, and the extent of support for the existing sentencing system. Such assessments should also examine pre‐existing trends and other independent sources of change; leadership by sentencing commissions or other officials in crafting responsive measures; structural and other features of the sentencing system which render compliance more or less difficult; and second‐stage effects, on sentencing, prosecutorial, or sentencing policy decisions, that reflect the prior compliance, avoidance, and mitigation measures adopted in that jurisdiction. The greatest long‐term effects may be on prosecutorial, legislative, and commission decisions, rather than on sentencing outcomes.     

How Much Can We Trust Causal Interpretations of Fixed-Effects Estimators in the Context of Criminality?

Researchers are often interested in estimating the causal effect of some treatment on individual criminality. For example, two recent relatively prominent papers have attempted to estimate the respective direct effects of marriage and gang participation on individual criminal activity. One difficulty to overcome is that the treatment is often largely the product of individual choice. This issue can cloud causal interpretations of correlations between the treatment and criminality since those choosing the treatment (e.g. marriage or gang membership) may have differed in their criminality from those who did not even in the absence of the treatment. To overcome this potential for selection bias researchers have often used various forms of individual fixed-effects estimators. While such fixed-effects estimators may be an improvement on basic cross-sectional methods, they are still quite limited when it comes to uncovering a true causal effect of the treatment on individual criminality because they may fail to account for the possibility of dynamic selection. Using data from the NSLY97, I show that such dynamic selection can potentially be quite large when it comes to criminality, and may even be exacerbated when using more advanced fixed-effects methods such as Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW). Therefore substantial care must be taken when it comes to interpreting the results arising from fixed-effects methods.