Article1991

Barring ultimate issue testimony: An "insane" rule?

35 citations0/0 files storedLaw and Human Behavior

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

Jury Decision Making Processes Legal processes and jurisprudence Psychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending

Abstract

This research focuses on one of the major changes wrought by the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: the exclusion of expert mental health testimony on the “ultimate issue,” that is, testimony specifically addressing the expert's opinion that the defendant is sane or insane. Subjects in this research were presented with 1 of 10 variants of an insanity case in which experts testified for the defense, prosecution, both, or neither. The testimony was at one of three levels: diagnostic only, penultimate issue, or ultimate issue. Results showed that level of testimony had no effect on the verdict pattern. There was evidence to suggest that this effect may occur because jurors infer, and/or mistakenly recall, higher levels of expert testimony than was actually presented to them. In addition, general and specific constructs (Finkel & Handel, 1989) that predict verdict yieldedR2 values from .500 to .668 and were not significantly affected by the level of expert testimony. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Citations in this library

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 35 citations exist upstream.

References

1966Behavioral sciences and the law.1988Evaluating Competencies: Forensic Assessments and Instruments 1986Evaluating Competencies 1987Juror decision making: The importance of evidence.1990Practical Implications of Psychological Research on Juror and Jury Decision Making 1990Formation and change in lay evaluations of criminal sentencing: Misperception and discontent.1989How jurors construe "insanity."1990Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help?

Cited by

2007Child abuse in the eyes of the beholder: Lay perceptions of child sexual and physical abuse 1999"Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy": Erratum.1991The insanity defense: A comparison of verdict schemas.2003The Prohibition of Ultimate Opinions: A Misguided Enterprise 1997The Impact of Elements of Self-Defense and Objective Versus Subjective Instructions on Jurors' Verdicts for Battered Women Defendants 2005Battered Women Who Kill: Variables Affecting Simulated Jurors' Verdicts

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.