The Impact of Psychological Injury Evidence and Jurors’ Schemas on Civil Case Decisions

Psychological injury evidence is at the heart of many civil claims. Due to the recent burgeoning of sexual harassment and assault claims which predominantly involve psychological distress, it is especially important to understand how jurors process this evidence at the most basic (or schema) level, and how these preconceived notions influence processing of trial evidence and subsequent legal judgments. As a result, the present paper explores rarely addressed—but fundamental—issues regarding how jurors perceive psychological injury evidence. Specifically, do jurors have psychological injury schemas? And if so, what injuries do these schemas contain, how stable are they, how are they evaluated, and how do they affect jurors’ case perceptions and legal decisions? A review of relevant theory and empirical research reveals that jurors have psychological injury schemas, but they are often poorly developed and susceptible to the influence of prompts used to retrieve these schemas (e.g., questions posed by attorneys during voir dire, the actual injuries adduced by the plaintiff). Also interesting is that despite the relative importance of psychological injury evidence, tremendous gaps remain regarding what actual types of psychological injuries jurors believe typically result in civil cases, how stable these injury schemas are, and precisely how they affect jurors’ decisions. This paper addresses these important issues to help organize and direct future research on the subject, including proposing a model for how psychological injury schemas interact with jurors’ perceptions of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries to affect their legal decisions.     

A Third Verdict Option: Exploring the Impact of the Not Proven Verdict on Mock Juror Decision Making

In most adversarial systems, jurors in criminal cases consider the binary verdict alternatives of "Guilty" and "Not guilty." However, in some circumstances and jurisdictions, a third verdict option is available: Not Proven. The Not Proven verdict essentially reflects the view that the defendant is indeed culpable, but that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Like a Not Guilty verdict, the Not Proven verdict results in an acquittal. The main aim of the two studies reported here was to determine how, and under what circumstances, jurors opt to use the Not Proven verdict across different case types and when the strength of the evidence varies. In both studies, jurors were more likely to choose a Not Proven verdict over a Not Guilty verdict when the alternative was available. When evidence against the defendant was only moderately strong and a Not Proven verdict option was available (Study 2), there was also a significant reduction in the conviction rate. Results also showed that understanding of the Not Proven verdict was poor, highlighting inadequacies in the nature of judicial instructions relating to this verdict.     

Reasonable charges for medical care or services. Final rule

This final rule amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical regulations concerning "reasonable charges" for medical care or services provided or furnished by VA to certain veterans for nonservice-connected disabilities. It changes the process for determining interim billing charges when a new Diagnosis Related Group (DRG) code or Current Procedural Terminology/Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System (CPT/HCPCS) code identifier is assigned to a particular type or item of medical care or service and VA has not yet established a charge for the new identifier. This process is designed to provide interim billing charges that are very close to what the new billing charges would be when the charges for the new identifiers are established in accordance with the regulations. This final rule also changes the regulations by removing all of the provisions for discounts of billed charges. This will eliminate or reduce duplicate discounting and thereby prevent unintended underpayments to the government.     

The Legislative Role of Juries

Is it possible that jurors, in the process of evaluating the evidence against a defendant, act to some degree as legislators by assessing the soundness of policies they perceive the criminal law to be supporting? To test the hypothesis that jurors reflect public opinion in making such judgments, the author correlated changes in public opinion on war policy with fluctuations in the proportion of jury trial defendants found guilty of violating selective service laws. It was found that juries convicted those accused of draft evasion at a higher rate when a war was in progress than during peacetime and that during the Korean and Vietnam wars the conviction rate was directly correlated with public approval of American military actions, A breakdown of regional differences showed that the South was somewhat more supportive of the Vietnam War and more prone to convict in selective service cases than the rest of the nation was, but the results of this comparative analysis were inconclusive. Although the correspondence between public opinion and verdict tendencies was far from perfect (perhaps in part because of the skewed composition of juries), the study does sup port the notion that jurors draw on prevailing popular sentiments about laws and the public policies the laws further.     

The Juror,the Citizen,and the Human Being: The Presumption of Innocence and the Burden of Judgment

In this essay, I suggest that the criminal trial is not only about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but also about the character and growth of the jurors and the communities they represent. In earlier work, I have considered the potential impact of law and politics on the character of citizens, and thus on the capacity of citizens to thrive—to live full and rich human lives. Regarding the jury, I have argued that aspects of criminal trial procedure work to fix in jurors a sense of agency in and responsibility for verdicts of conviction. Here, I draw on those ideas with respect to the presumption of innocence. I suggest that the presumption of innocence works not primarily as legal rule, but rather as a moral framing device—a sort of moral discomfort device—encouraging jurors to feel and bear the weight of what they do. I offer an account of character development in which virtues are conceived of not merely as modes of conduct developed through habituation and practice, but also as capacities and ways of being developed in part through understanding and experience. The criminal trial, framed by the presumption of innocence, can be an experience through which jurors and their communities, by learning what it means and feels like to carry a certain sort of moral weight, may engender a certain set of moral strengths—strengths valuable to them not just as jurors, but also as citizens, and as human beings.     

The Dock on Trial: Courtroom Design and the Presumption of Innocence

This article examines the place of the criminal dock in courtroom design. Challenges to the use of the dock have been based upon the inability of the defendants to hear effectively, to communicate with counsel, to maintain their dignity, and to benefit from the presumption of innocence. Increasingly courts are incorporating secure docks, where defendants are partially or completely surrounded by glass (or in some countries, metal bars). To what extent do these changes and modifications undermine the right to the presumption of innocence? We present the results of an experimental mock jury study that was designed to test whether the placement of the accused influences jurors’ perceptions. We find that jurors are more likely to convict defendants when they are located in a traditional dock or a secure dock, compared to sitting next to their counsel at the bar table. We conclude by discussing the implications for trial procedures, counsel communications, and courtroom design.     

The Effect of Jury Deliberations on Jurors' Reasoning Skills

The effect of jury deliberation on jurors' reasoning skill in a murder trial was examined. Specifically, the effect of deliberating on reasoning competence (as defined by Kuhn, Weinstock and Flaton, 1994) was explored. One hundred and four participants viewed a videotaped murder trial and either deliberated in 12-person juries or ruminated on the case individually. Among those assigned to juries, half had their reasoning skill assessed prior to deliberations, while the others were tested after deliberating. Jurors in the individual rumination condition were assessed after they had the opportunity to reflect on the case alone. As hypothesized, post-group-deliberation jurors were more likely to discount both the selected verdict and alternative theories and incorporate judgmental supporting statements than were the other mock jurors. However, the mock jurors did not differ with regard to making statements that supported alternative verdicts or including judgmental statements that discounted their chosen verdict. In terms of Kuhn's reasoning continuum from satisficing (low level) to theory–evidence coordination (high level), there is some evidence that post-group-deliberation jurors may be closer to the high end than predeliberation jurors or post-individual-rumination jurors in some aspects of the task, but not in others.     

Jurors' Perceptions of Adolescent Sexual Assault Victims Who Have Intellectual Disabilities

Children and adolescents with intellectual disabilities are especially likely to be sexually abused. Even so, their claims are not likely to be heard in court, possibly because people assume that jurors will not believe them. We tested this assumption in a mock-trial study in which 160 men and women watched videotaped excerpts from an actual trial. As predicted, when the 16-year-old sexual assault victim was portrayed as mildly mentally retarded instead of as having average intelligence, jurors were more likely to vote guilty and had more confidence in the defendant's guilt; considered the victim to be more credible and the defendant to be less credible as witnesses; and rated the victim as more honest, less capable of fabricating the sexual abuse accusation, and less likely to have fabricated the sexual abuse accusation. Men and women were affected similarly by the disability manipulation, but women were generally more pro-prosecution in their case judgments and perceptions than were men. Finally, jurors who had more liberal views toward persons with disabilities were more likely than other jurors to make pro-prosecution judgments on measures of guilt. Implications for psychological theory and the law are discussed.     

Expert evidence and medical manslaughter: vagueness in action

This article examines the reliance placed on expert evidence in prosecutions of health professionals for gross negligence manslaughter, where juries must decide whether conduct goes beyond civil negligence and constitutes the crime of involuntary manslaughter. It argues that the test for liability is vague and examines some of the consequences of this. Given the vagueness of the offence, jurors are likely to place great reliance on expert medical evidence. Little is known about how experts negotiate the legal process, empirically speaking: how they approach their task, how they view their role as expert witnesses, and the attitudes, biases, and beliefs that may underpin their testimony. Drawing on the experiences and perceptions often medical experts, this article explores how experts manage the vagueness inherent in the task of interpreting and applying gross negligence. Experts appear to go beyond offering purely medical opinion and enjoy engaging with law and the legal process.     

Examining legal authoritarianism in the impact of punishment severity on juror decisions

Recent Supreme Court decisions point to an increased reliance on juries to determine a defendant's sentence. Evidence is mixed on whether jurors are more likely to convict when the potential punishment is mild. The current study examined this issue, as well as the impact of legal authoritarianism (LA) (Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. 1993. Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661–677. doi: 10.1007/BF01044688), on jurors’ decisions. An ethnically diverse sample of participants completed the individual difference measure prior to viewing a videotaped, reenacted criminal trial. We manipulated the severity of the punishment the defendant would receive if convicted. Results indicated LA moderated the effect of punishment severity on verdict. Specifically, at higher levels of punishment severity, civil libertarians convicted less, while legal authoritarians convicted more. That is, the severity-leniency effect held for civil libertarians, but not for legal authoritarians. As juries become more responsible for determining a defendant's sentence, attorneys should be aware of the defendant's potential sentence and use voir dire to identify jurors who are higher on LA.     

The role of neurological and psychological explanations in legal judgments of psychopathic wrongdoers

Although brain imaging has recently taken center stage in criminal legal proceedings, little is known about how neuroscience information differentially affects people’s judgments about criminal behavior. In two studies of community participants (N = 1161), we examined how mock jurors sentence a fictional psychopathic defendant when presented with neurological or psychological research of equal or ambiguous scientific validity. Across two studies, we (a) found that including images of the brain did not alter mock jurors’ sentencing judgments, (b) reported two striking non-replications of previous findings that mock jurors recommend less severe punishments to defendants when a neuroscientific explanations are proffered, and (c) found that participants rated a psychopathic individual as more likely to benefit from treatment and less dangerous when a neurological explanation for his deficits was provided. Overall, these results suggest that neuroscience information provided by psychiatrists in hypothetical criminal situations may not broadly transform mock jurors’ intuitions about a psychopathic defendant’s sentence, but they provide novel evidence that brain-based information may influence people’s judgments about treatability and dangerousness.     

Determining health care rights from behind a veil of ignorance

Should our society establish positive rights to health care that each citizen could claim, as many health policy analysts believe? Or should it provide only background rules of contract and property law and leave the provision of health care to the free market, as Richard Epstein advocates in Mortal Peril? In this article, Professor Korobkin argues that this question should be addressed from the Rawlsian "veil of ignorance" perspective. That is, the question should be answered by asking what kind of society would individuals agree to form if they had no knowledge of their individual skills or endowments; if they did not know whether they were rich or poor, healthy or sick, weak or strong. Professor Korobkin contends that individuals behind such a veil of ignorance would balance their inherent risk aversion (which favors a safety net of "rights") against the inefficient incentives created by rights regimes that would reduce net social wealth (which favors a free market). Whether they would choose to establish rights to health care or not is ultimately an empirical question that turns on how inefficient any particular right would be. The question thus requires a case-by-case analysis of proposed rights. The article then considers the policy issues of (1) community rating of private health insurance and (2) the mandated provision of emergency medical care. It concludes that in these cases the inefficient incentives created by establishing rights are probably smaller and/or controllable enough to lead individuals behind the veil of ignorance to favor a regime of positive rights.     

Proof and policy from medical research evidence

When judging the benefits and harms of health care and predicting patient prognosis, clinicians, researchers, and others must consider many types of evidence. Medical research evidence is part of the required knowledge base, and practitioners of evidence-based medicine must attempt to integrate the best available clinical evidence from systematic research with health professionals' expertise and patients' rights to be informed about diagnostic and therapeutic options available to them. Judging what constitutes sound evidence can be difficult because of, among other things, the sheer quantity, diversity, and complexity of medical evidence available today; the various scientific methods that have been advanced for assembling, evaluating, and interpreting such information; and the guides for applying medical research evidence to individual patients' situations. Recommendations based on sound research can then be brought forward as either guidelines or standards, and criteria exist by which valid guidelines and standards can be developed and promulgated. Nonetheless, gaps and deficiencies exist in current guidelines and in the methods for finding and synthesizing evidence. Interpreting and judging medical research involves subjective, not solely explicit, processes. Thus, developments in evidence-based medicine are an aid, but not a panacea, for definitively establishing benefits and harms of medical care, and the contributions that medical research evidence can make in any clinical or legal situation must be understood in a context in which judgment and values, understanding of probability, and tolerance for uncertainty all play a role.     

Do Jurors “Know” What Isn’t So About Child Witnesses?

Are expert witnesses needed in child sexual abuse cases to educate jurors about children’s memory, suggestibility, and reactions to abuse, or do jurors already know what such experts could tell them? To cast light on this question, we surveyed jurors and jury-eligible college students and compared their beliefs with what is known via scientific research regarding children’s memory and ability to testify, reactions to interrogation, and reactions to sexual abuse. We also asked participants to infer results of four widely cited studies of children’s suggestibility. Participants’ beliefs were consistent with findings from research on some issues (e.g., that children can be led to claim that false events occurred) but diverged from the scientific consensus on other issues (e.g., whether children can remember painful events in infancy). Similarly, participants sometimes overestimated and sometimes underestimated the level of suggestibility observed in empirical studies. Individual differences in accuracy were related to participants’ gender, education and ethnicity, and there was considerable disagreement among participants on many questions. Implications of findings for the admissibility of expert testimony in child abuse cases are discussed.     

The liability of medical directors for utilization review decisions

Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) have turned to numerous cost-containment measures to combat rising healthcare costs. One of the most common is the use of utilization review to ascertain whether a recommended mode of treatment is "medically necessary." When the medical director of an MCO determines that care recommended by a patient's treating physician is not medically necessary and not eligible for coverage (and, as a result, potentially unattainable due to cost), the stage is set for litigation. In such situations, medical directors may become potentially liable for disciplinary action by their state medical licensing board as well as lawsuits for malpractice or negligence. However, plaintiffs wishing to recover damages for improper determinations of this nature or state boards trying to discipline these physicians, face the hurdles of the preemptive force of ERISA, and state doctrines to the effect that corporations (and, derivatively, their medical directors) cannot practice medicine and therefore cannot be liable for malpractice. Conflicting decisions and opinions make it impossible at the present time to have a settled expectation regarding the potential liability of medical directors in this context, although the law appears to be moving toward the treatment of utilization review as medical decisionmaking; therefore, it appears likely that the activities of medical directors increasingly will face state oversight--including the imposition of common law liability in appropriate situations.     

法国重罪陪审制度的启示与借鉴

陪审制度具有重要的政治意蕴与司法功能。在法国,对于法定刑较重的重大案件,实行以随机方式抽选一般国民担任陪审员,由陪审员与职业法官组成合议庭,共同审理案件,一起决定定罪量刑的制度。法国重罪陪审制度对于完善我国人民陪审员制度,如构建重罪、复杂案件由陪审团审理的制度,取消对陪审员学历的要求、确立科学的陪审员遴选程序与陪审团评议表决程序方面具有重要的借鉴意义。     

The development of national medical care programs in the United Kingdom and Canada: applicability to current conditions in the United States

After a hiatus in the early to mid-1980s, a growing number of policy leaders, policy organizations, and citizen groups are advocating programs that ensure basic medical care for all. Although a large literature examines the applicability to the U.S. of national medical care programs that have been established in other countries from the perspective of operations and effectiveness, little attention has been given to the applicability of the experience of other nations in securing these programs. This paper examines the development of national programs in the U.K. and Canada and addresses two questions. First, what factors were critical to the establishment of the British National Health Service and the Canadian hospital and physician insurance programs? Second, how applicable are those factors to current conditions in the U.S.? The paper reviews the roles played by dislocations in society, by established models of state-sponsored medical care programs, by political institutions and leaders, and by the major medical sectors. It shows that the U.S., while differing in many particulars, presents several parallels to the U.K. and Canada. The paper argues that the current environment in the U.S. offers the nation the opportunity to develop at state or local levels government-sponsored programs that guarantee basic medical benefits to all. A new and powerful coalition, moreover, may in the coming years advance the cause of broader, more substantive change at the national level.     

Expert Testimony Regarding Child Witnesses: Does It Sensitize Jurors to Forensic Interview Quality?

Does expert testimony on forensic interviews with children help adults distinguish between poorly conducted and well-conducted interviews? This study evaluates the effects of social framework expert testimony regarding child witnesses in a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse. A 2 (Expert Testimony: present or absent) × 3 (Child Forensic Interview Quality: poor, typical, or good) × 2 (Child’s Age: 4- or 10-year-old) factorial design was used to examine whether expert testimony is prejudicial or beneficial to jurors (N = 463). The results revealed that, without expert testimony, mock jurors did not consider the forensic interview quality when reaching a verdict. However, with expert testimony, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts if the interview quality was good versus poor. Further expert testimony increased mock jurors’ knowledge about child witnesses. These findings suggest that expert testimony related to the impact of interview techniques on the reliability of children’s reports may assist fact-finders in evaluating child abuse cases.