Social science in supreme court death penalty cases: Citation practices and their implications

This study examines the use of evidence based on social science research in Supreme Court capital punishment cases decided between 1963 and 1985. These years mark the beginning of the Court's modern decisions regarding the death penalty and extend to the approximate midpoint in this body of jurisprudence. The frequency and the major correlates of social science research citations in the Supreme Court's death penalty cases are described, and these findings are contrasted with the justices' use of social science evidence in other types of criminal cases. The justices have used social science materials relatively often in capital punishment cases, although it does not necessarily follow that social science findings have been important to the decision of these cases. The results of this research are discussed, along with other issues relevant to the judicial use of research evidence based on social science.     

Social science and the Courts

Social scientists have increasingly become involved in the submission of amicus curiae or friend of the court briefs in legal cases being decided by state and federal courts. This increase has triggered considerable debate about the use of briefs to communicate relevant social science research. This article evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of various methods of summarizing social science research for the courts. It also reviews the procedures for submitting briefs developed by the American Psychology-Law Society which, in collaboration with the American Psychological Association, has submitted its first brief inMaryland v. Craig, a case recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.The authors wish to thank James Ogloff, Kathy Roesch, and Claudia Worrell for their comments on an earlier draft     

Social science data and the APA

The wisdom of the American Psychological Association's submitting amicus briefs to affect social or legal policy is questioned by an analysis of the brief claimed to be a strong example of the effective use of social science data in the public policy arena; namely, the APA brief (Bersoff & Ogden, 1987) inLockhart v. McCree (1986). The data relied upon in the brief do not appear to support the assertions based upon them, and other data are adduced to develop the critique. It is concluded that it is mischievous for the Association to address itself to the courts by generalizing a data base well beyond its useful limits: The adversarial and scientific methods of establishing truth are in several respects antithetical.     

Social science in Supreme Court criminal cases and briefs

This article describes citations of social science research evidence in 200 criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court and in the briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae in these cases. It also examines the uses of social science authorities in samples of Supreme Court exclusionary rule and jury decisionmaking cases, and accompanying briefs. The correspondence between the social science references cited in the decisions and the briefs is used as one measure of the brief-writers' contributions to the Court's use of social science materials, and related contributions of the brief-writers are explored, as well. The justices appeared to locate the majority of social science references cited in their opinions without assistance from the briefs, and thus also presumably attempted to evaluate the research evidence on their own. Individuals and organizations with scientific expertise rarely filed amicus briefs in these cases, which may help explain why the Court so frequently was without assistance in locating or examining research evidence. It is suggested that the appellate judiciary's informed use of social science materials would be promoted if more social scientists, and their professional organizations, participated as amici curiae in cases presenting social fact issues within their competence.     

The nature of forensic science opinion--a possible framework to guide thinking and practice in investigations and in court proceedings.

The questions that are asked of forensic scientists during the course of a criminal investigation, and during subsequent court proceedings, are of varied form. This paper attempts to place these questions into broad generic types and explores the difference in the inferential process that a scientist may employ when forming opinions that help answer these questions. From this model, a working definition of different roles and attributes for forensic scientists is described which may offer greater clarity for both practitioners and users of forensic science.     

The experimental psychologist in court

This special issue comprises articles by psychologists, legal scholars, and ethicists on the ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists. In it the major ethical questions facing the prospective expert witness are clarified, and alternative positions on these issues are defined and debated. Fundamentals of moral reasoning are discussed, and the realities of interaction with a judicial system that subjects the psychologist to a variety of pressures and limitations are made apparent. The aim is not to offer final answers to complex ethical questions, but rather to provide a framework within which the questions can be considered by the individual psychologist.The conference on ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists was supported by National Science Foundation grant No. ISP-8209940. We thank Rachelle Hollander of the Ethics and Values in Science and Technology Program, Joe Young of the Memory and Cognitive Processes Program, and Eric Juengst of the National Endowment for the Humanities for their help in bringing about the conference.     

Child witnesses in criminal court

The last decade has witnessed a dramatic rise in public and professional concern regarding the special needs of children as witnesses in the court setting. This study was conducted to examine characteristics of criminal court cases involving children as potential witnesses that were adjudicated through a trial conviction, trial acquittal, or guilty plea, from among cases that went to court in a 12-month period in nine judicial circuits in three states. Three hundred sixteen criminal court cases involving children as potential witnesses were examined. The vast majority, of these cases involved sexual crimes against children. The results indicated that relatively few (16.8%) adjudicated cases were resolved through a trial proceeding. Sentencing varied from state to state and as a function of the disposition of the case. Future research should be conducted prospectively to determine (a) whether cases involving children as witnesses in criminal court are prosecuted at lower rates than cases involving adults and (b) the reasons that cases leave the criminal justice system prior to any court actions.This research was supported by State Justice Institute grant No. 88-11J-D-064. Points of view or opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute.     

Trial court decision in Houle case

The plaintiffs in this case, a hospital and an attending physician, petitioned the court to exercise its parens patriae authority when the parents of a newborn with multiple birth defects refused to consent to surgery that would permit normal feeding and respiration. Basing his decision on the medical necessity and feasibility of the proposed treatments and setting aside the issue of the infant's quality of life, Justice David G. Roberts of the Superior Court ruled that the parents had no right to withhold care from their child. He authorized the infant's guardian ad litem to consent to surgery and other standard life-preserving measures that were immediately necessary, retaining jurisdiction for the court over future developments in the case.     

Hastings-Bass considered in Cayman Islands court

A settlement, created in 1994 by a UK resident for UK capitalgains tax purposes, was governed by British Virgin Island law.The trustees, in 2000, made two investments through a Guernseyprotected cell company. Before the second investment, the UKtax legislation changed. The trustees were not advised of thechange and the investment went ahead; this comprised £750,000paid by an investment company also controlled by the trustees,to the trustee, of which £712,000 was then paid as a loanto one of the cells of the Guernsey company. The unheeded changeof legislation resulted in a substantial tax liability for thesettlor. The trustee applied to the court for a declaration that thetrustee's decision to accept the     

The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court.

The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.