Chapter Review Questions Which of the following is NOT a reason for which a juror may be challenged for cause: A They not meet minimal juror requirements B They are incapable of being impartial C They have a mental or physical disability that leaves them incapable of serving D They have seen a newspaper article about the case Pretrial publicity has been found to have no effect on jurors True False Discuss your views about the CSI effect hypothesis presented in this chapter Do you believe that jurors expect too much from forensic science? Areas of forensic psychology practice that frequently require expert testimony are: A Competency to stand trial B Mental state at the time of the offense C Assessment of violence risk D All of the above A psychologist is automatically qualified as an expert witness on the basis of his/her training and education True False Do you believe that psychologists should be allowed to testify regarding the ultimate issue? Why or why not? Discuss the Frye and Daubert standards and how they might affect the admissibility of psychological evidence Expert testimony does not influence the jury’s verdict True False The 2002 Supreme Court case Penry v Lynaugh resulted in the mentally retarded being exempt from the death penalty True False 10 The phenomenon in which IQ scores tend to increase at a rate of roughly points per year following the norming process is known as the A Flynn Effect B Maturation Effect C Education Effect D Obsolescence Effect 11 Discuss the use of strict cutoff scores in the evaluation of mental retardation for capital cases Are you in favor of them or not? Debate your position 12 A forensic consultant conducting a mitigation evaluation must include only information supportive of a lesser sentence or reduced culpability, in order to fulfill their ethical obligation to protect the defendant from potentially harmful effects from the evaluation True False 13 Which of the following would NOT be considered a mitigating factor? Chapter Review Chapter Reviewecont’d A A defendant’s history of sexual abuse as a child B A defendant’s lack of criminal history C A defendant’s behavior during current and any previous incarcerations D All of the above are potentially mitigating 14 Describe the “door opening effect” which may occur as a result of the mitigation evaluation, and the considerations an evaluator must address regarding this issue Answer Key D They have seen a newspaper article about the case False Pros of CSI effect: protects defendants from being potentially wrongly convicted on circumstantial or otherwise inconclusive evidence; allows jurors to determine on a case-bycase basis what constitutes “reasonable doubt.” Cons of CSI effect: defendants who are guilty may be acquitted due to the presence of only circumstantial evidence; may place pressure on scientific experts to overstate their findings; jurors may place too much emphasis on errors associated with scientific evidence to the neglect of other forms of evidence which may correctly point to a defendant’s guilt D All of the above False Pros of ultimate issue testimony: jurors and/or judges not have to integrate complex and technical findings without the benefit of an expert’s opinion regarding the issue at hand; there is some empirical evidence that jurors and judges prefer experts to state opinions regarding the ultimate issue Cons of ultimate issue testimony: jurors or judges may go along with the ultimate issue testimony without critically thinking about the flaws of the expert’s opinion due to reliance on the opinion of the expert; causes the expert, who is supposed to be objective and impartial, to take on some aspects of the role of the trier of fact According to the ruling from Daubert, judges may consider the following factors when determining whether scientific evidence is admissible: (1) Has the technique been tested in actual field conditions? (2) Has the technique been subject to peer review and publication? (3) What is the known or potential rate of error? (4) Do standards exist for control of the technique’s operation? (5) Has the technique been generally accepted within the relevant scientific community? In the Frye ruling, it was held that techniques should be generally accepted by the corresponding scientific community These standards may affect the admissibility of psychological evidence in many ways For example, methodologies and techniques used in social sciences such as psychology may be less apt to meet the criteria for Daubert, particularly criteria and 2, than other sciences Additionally, the general acceptance standard contained in both decisions may be difficult to prove or meet with psychological evidence, as there is frequent controversy regarding the appropriate application of psychological techniques, and what constitutes “general acceptance” is subjective and left open to interpretation False False 10 A Flynn Effect Chapter Review Chapter Reviewecont’d 11 Pros of strict cutoff scores: creates a clear dividing line for what constitutes mental retardation and what does not; may be viewed as more consistent with DSM-IV-TR definition of mental retardation Cons of strict cutoff scores: a person may meet criteria for mental retardation when the confidence interval is considered but their full score may disqualify them from legal protections in states with strict cutoff scores; this method may not address what is to be done when a defendant has been tested multiple times and has scores which fall both above and below the strict cutoff score; some states with strict cutoff scores also mandate which assessments must be given and when (and sometimes by multiple examiners in a short period of time) e this could create problems with accuracy of testing due to practice effects and/or test-retest differences 12 False 13 D All of the above are potentially mitigating 14 Depending on jurisdictional regulations, discussing a defendant’s actions during an alleged offense may open the door for prosecutors to discuss the alleged offense with the defendant as well Therefore, it is recommended that the expert discuss this matter in detail with defense counsel prior to asking a defendant any questions regarding the alleged offense, and it is also noted that often, mitigating evidence may be collected without discussing the defendant’s actions during the alleged offense, and therefore, these issues may be avoided altogether If a decision is made to discuss the alleged offense in detail, the following pros and cons must be weighed carefully by the evaluator and defense counsel Having such a discussion supports the evaluator’s need to have a full, balanced, and comprehensive dataset from which to form opinions; also, having such a discussion may be necessary to determine the level of involvement a particular defendant had in a crime, or to ascertain the level of maturity displayed by a defendant Failure to discuss the offense with the defendant leaves one vulnerable to attack by the prosecutor On the contrary, Cunningham and Reidy (2001) have suggested that any information necessary to form such opinions may be obtained from investigative materials Finally, these authors also contend that the defendant may give a version of events which is not supported by available evidence, and such information may be unduly damaging when presented to a jury All of these factors, in addition to the specific laws and standards for the jurisdiction in which the evaluation occurs, should be considered by the expert conducting mitigation evaluations when determining whether or not to discuss the alleged offense with an evaluee  ... experts to overstate their findings; jurors may place too much emphasis on errors associated with scientific evidence to the neglect of other forms of evidence which may correctly point to a defendant’s... opinion due to reliance on the opinion of the expert; causes the expert, who is supposed to be objective and impartial, to take on some aspects of the role of the trier of fact According to the ruling... with strict cutoff scores; this method may not address what is to be done when a defendant has been tested multiple times and has scores which fall both above and below the strict cutoff score;