Differential Impact of Mitigating Evidence in Capital Case Sentencing

Barnett, Michelle E.; Brodsky, Stanley L.; Price, J. Randall

doi:10.1300/j158v07n01_04

Cited by 45 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…a history of child abuse, drug abuse, or alcoholism) sometimes causes mock jurors to be more punitive, which has been labeled as the ''backfire effect'' (e.g. Barnett, Brodsky, & Price, 2007;Brodsky, Adams, & Tupling, 2007). For example, in a recent study of the statements that mock jurors made during deliberations in a death penalty case, Stevenson et al (2008) found that jurors were more likely to discount a defendant's history of child abuse and alcoholism as mitigators (or even to use these factors as aggravators) than they were to use this evidence in the intended mitigating manner.…”

Section: Emotional Evidence Presented In Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional evidence and jurors' judgments: the promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law

Salerno¹,

Bottoms²

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article is a review of psychological and neuroscience research addressing how juror decision making is influenced by emotion elicited from potentially disturbing evidence such as gruesome autopsy photographs, victim impact statements, and information about a defendant's tragic personal history presented as mitigating evidence. We review (a) converging evidence suggesting that the presence versus absence of such evidence results in more punitive juror judgments, (b) social cognition theories that provide potential explanations for these effects, and (c) neuroscience research aimed at understanding the role of emotion in moral judgments by identifying how brain activity is affected by emotion-eliciting stimuli. We argue that neuroimaging evidence showing that emotional stimuli cause heightened emotion and decreased effortful cognitive processing is relevant in understanding jurors' increased punitiveness after being exposed to emotional evidence, and in turn relevant to debates about the admissibility of emotional evidence in courts of law. Ultimately, we argue for more ecologically valid psychological research to clarify these important issues.

show abstract

Section: Emotional Evidence Presented In Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotional evidence and jurors' judgments: the promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law

Salerno¹,

Bottoms²

2009

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Alternatively, the circumstances of the offense and legal counsel's choice of mental illness mitigators may be unrelated. Prior research suggests that mental illness mitigating evidence may lead to quite varied responses from jurors, depending on the specific evidentiary factor, and at times intended mitigators may in actuality be valuated as aggravators (Barnett et al, 2004(Barnett et al, , 2007Bjerregaard et al, 2010;Edens et al, 2005;Garvey, 2004;Gillespie et al, 2014;McPherson, 1995;Stevenson et al, 2010). It is plausible that legal counsel may formulate a defense strategy with these various elements in mind when choosing to pursue a given mental illness mitigator.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Juries may be much more sympathetic to one type of psychological factor (i.e., mental retardation) than to another (i.e., mental illness; Barnett et al, 2004Barnett et al, , 2007Garvey et al, 2004;Gillespie et al, 2014). Stevenson et al (2010) coded mock jurors' comments about a defendant's history of abuse during deliberations and found that jurors were more likely to either ignore the defendant's aversive history or even use it as an aggravator rather than to consider it as a mitigator.…”

Section: Mental Illness Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inmates on death row are disproportionately affected by mental illness, compared to both the general community population and other incarcerated groups (Cunningham and Vigen, 2002). Despite the high prevalence of mental illness diagnoses among the condemned and the gravity of the decisions in the American capital justice system, insufficient research has evaluated the effects of mental illness data on capital case mitigation, and results of these studies have been inconsistent (Barnett et al, 2004(Barnett et al, , 2007.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mental health mitigating evidence and judicial outcomes for federal capital defendants

Stites

Dahlsgaard

2015

International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…However, research also indicates that jurors occasionally apply psychological and psychosocial testimony presented during mitigation as aggravating evidence (Ellsworth, Bukaty, Cowan, & Thompson, 1984;Schroeder, Guin, Pogue, & Bordelon, 2006). It generally appears that jurors consider and apply circumstances that are perceived to be less controllable by the defendant (e.g., history of childhood physical or sexual abuse, mental retardation, mental illness, extreme emotional distress, age, or history of head injury) as mitigating evidence, while they consider and apply circumstances that are perceived to be more volitional or representative of characterological flaws (e.g., alcohol/drug intoxication, alcohol/drug dependence) as aggravating evidence (Barnett, Brodsky, & Davis, 2004;Barnett, Brodsky, & Price, 2004;Barnett, Brodsky, & Price, 2007).…”

Section: Psychological and Biopsychosocial Mitigation Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation Evaluations: A Survey of Current Practices

Barnett

Brodsky

Neal

2011

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the scope and components of mitigation assessments in a first effort to develop some guidelines for conducting mitigation evaluations. Using the Mitigation Evaluations Survey (MES) we developed for this research, we surveyed 266 psychologists about the characteristics and content of mitigation evaluations. A high percentage of participants endorsed each of the 14 content areas presented in the MES as essential or recommended for inclusion in mitigation evaluations. However, when the participants were given a hypothetical open-ended referral question regarding a mitigation evaluation, fewer participants included all 14 content areas in their responses. This discrepancy as well as information regarding the qualifications and expertise of the participants is discussed. Mitigation Evaluations 3 Mitigation Evaluations: A Survey of Current PracticesMitigation evaluations occupy a unique position within psycholegal topics for several reasons. First, mitigation occurs solely in the sentencing phase of capital murder trials. Capital trials are divided into two separate parts: the guilt-determining phase, and if necessary, the sentencing phase. It is this sentencing phase that sets capital trials apart from other types of criminal and civil litigation, and within this sentencing phase mitigation testimony may become crucial. During the sentencing phase, the jury hears both aggravating and mitigating evidence regarding the case and the defendant, weighs that evidence, and recommends a sentence (Acker & Lanier, 1994).A second unique element of mitigation work is that it involves a process that carries life or death implications. Jurors who hear the mitigating and aggravating arguments in the sentencing phase of capital trials must rely on that information to arrive at the life-or-death decision they are charged with making. Other psycholegal work psychologists perform (e.g., competency to stand trial, mental state, criminal responsibility) is not directly linked to potential death outcome options.An additional unique element of mitigation work is the role mental health professionals (MHPs) assume. Decisions regarding the investigation of the case and defendant for potential mitigating circumstances, the selection of mitigation evidence to be presented, and the specific content and depth to which the mitigating factors and circumstances are introduced are

show abstract

Differential Impact of Mitigating Evidence in Capital Case Sentencing

Cited by 45 publications

References 4 publications

Emotional evidence and jurors' judgments: the promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law

Emotional evidence and jurors' judgments: the promise of neuroscience for informing psychology and law

Mental health mitigating evidence and judicial outcomes for federal capital defendants

Mitigation Evaluations: A Survey of Current Practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About