Search

The purpose of the research was to determine whether European American and Latino mock jurors would demonstrate bias in death penalty decision making when mitigation evidence and defendant ethnicity and socioeconomic status (SES) were varied. A total of 561 actual venire persons acted as mock jurors and read a trial transcript that varied a defendant's case information (mitigating circumstances: strong/weak, defendant ethnicity: European American/Latino, and defendant SES: low/high). European American jurors recommended the death penalty significantly more often for the low SES Latino defendant when strength of mitigation evidence was weak. In addition, they also assigned this defendant higher culpability ratings and lower ratings on positive personality trait measures compared with all other conditions. Strong mitigation evidence contributed to lower guilt ratings by European American jurors for the high SES European American defendant. Latino jurors did not differ in their death penalty sentencing across defendant mitigation, ethnicity, or SES conditions. Discussion of in-group favoritism and out-group derogation, as well as suggestions for procedures to diminish juror bias in death penalty cases, is provided., ((c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).)

This research examined the effects of several versions of capital penalty phase instructions on juror comprehension. Study One documented the impact of California's recently implemented "plain language" instruction. It showed that although the new instruction has clear advantages over the previous version, significant comprehension problems remain. Study Two evaluated several modified instructions designed to enhance comprehension. Participants heard either a standard patterned instruction or one of two alternatives-a psycholinguistically improved instruction, or a "pinpoint" instruction using case-related facts to illustrate key terms-in a simulated death penalty sentencing phase. Persons who heard modified instructions demonstrated higher levels of comprehension on virtually every measure as compared to those in the standard instruction condition.

In forensic psychiatry, there is increasing recognition of the importance of culture and ethnicity in the criminal justice process as the population becomes more culturally diverse. However, there has been little consideration of the role of cultural factors in the trial process for criminal defendants, particularly in the sentencing phase of trial. Using a capital murder case study, this article explores the role of cultural forensic psychiatric consultation, focusing on the sentencing phase of trial as the place where the full scope and power of a cultural evaluation can be brought most effectively to the attention of the court. Cultural psychiatric perspectives can enrich a core forensic evaluation and be maximally helpful to the court, by exploring family dynamics and psychological health influenced by cultural history, immigrant and refugee experiences, and sociocultural environment. Specific recommendations and cautions for effective cultural consultation in forensic psychiatry are discussed.

As a result of recent decisions by the United States and California Supreme Courts, therapists now have been placed in a position in which they can be forced to testify in death penalty cases for the only purposes of achieving a conviction and a death penalty verdict. Zeal for the death penalty seems to have overcome any concern for the ethics of psychiatrists or even for the welfare of society. In California, therapists can now be forced to testify against their own patients in capital cases even if the patient does not tender his mental state as an issue, despite the presence of a psychotherapist-patient privilege in the state for criminal matters. In California, the only option for therapists who wish to treat potentially dangerous patients may be to conduct the therapy under the umbrella of attorney-client privilege. Otherwise they may not be able to avoid serious ethical problems and personal danger if the patient actually does kill someone during or after therapy. They may be unable honestly and ethically to treat such patients without obtaining truly informed consent to therapy under these potentially "undercover policeman" circumstances. Hopefully, professional organizations will take a more activist position, and courts will appreciate the folly of these decisions and reverse them. Otherwise, they may spread to other states, for which California frequently sets precedents.