Jury selection in insanity defense cases

Cutler, Brian L.; Moran, Gary; Narby, Douglas J.

doi:10.1016/0092-6566(92)90052-6

Cited by 52 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Across four separate vignettes and multiple case judgments, negative attitudes towards the insanity defense strongly predicted verdicts of ''guilty'' (r ¼ .49-.61). This is consistent with the robust finding that attitudes toward the insanity defense exert considerable influence on mock jurors' verdicts in insanity cases (Bailis, Darley, Waxman, & Robinson, 1995;Cutler, Moran, & Narby, 1992;Ellsworth, Bukaty, Cowan, & Thompson, 1984;Homant & Kennedy, 1987;Roberts & Golding, 1991;Roberts et al, 1987;Skeem et al, 2004). The present study extends previous findings by using ''real'' jurors and a standardized measure of attitudes toward the insanity defense.…”

Section: Attitudes Versus Prototypes In Case Decision-makingsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Because a defendant will not obtain a fair trial if some of the jurors impaneled are unwilling to entertain his established legal defense of insanity (Cutler et al, 1992), these attitudes should be assessed in cases where the defense is raised. First, just as jurors who would never impose the death penalty are excluded from death penalty cases (see Witherspoon v. Illinois, 1968), jurors who would never find any defendant insane could be excluded from insanity cases.…”

Section: Identifying Biased Jurorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Constructing insanity: jurors' prototypes, attitudes, and legal decision‐making

Louden

Skeem

2007

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research consistently indicates that jurors' intuitive prototypes of insanity and case-relevant attitudes shape their verdicts more strongly than legal definitions of insanity. Based on a sample of 113 prospective jurors, this study was designed to (a) assess the extent to which three prototypes of insanity held by jurors in a past study generalize to a sample of jurors in another state and (b) determine the relative influence of attitudes toward the insanity defense and prototypes of insanity on jurors' case judgments across four insanity case vignettes. Results suggest that jurors' attitudes toward the insanity defense affected case judgments so strongly (r = .41-.61) that they swamped efforts to assess jurors' prototypes of insanity. Further, jurors' prototypes of insanity offered little incremental utility beyond that of insanity defense attitudes. Implications for identifying biased jurors and potential interventions for bringing jurors' decisions into greater accord with the law are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Attitudes Versus Prototypes In Case Decision-makingsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Identifying Biased Jurorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Constructing insanity: jurors' prototypes, attitudes, and legal decision‐making

Louden

Skeem

2007

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A personality trait refers to a relatively stable pattern of thought, emotion, and behavior that describes "how people act in general" (Funder, 2004, p. 109). Case-specific attitude research has shown that jurors' attitudes toward the death penalty (Nietzel, McCarthy, & Kern, 1999), insanity defense (Cutler, Moran, & Narby, 1992), legal system (Lecci & Myers, 2002), and civil litigation (Robbennolt et al, 2006) can be modest predictors of their case-related decisions. The recent preference for attitude measures over personality measures in jury research is also consistent with Narby et al's finding that Legal Authoritarianism (attitude) was a stronger predictor of conviction proneness than Traditional Authoritarianism (personality).…”

Section: Overview Of Juror Personality Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five Factor Model Personality Traits, Jury Selection, and Case Outcomes in Criminal and Civil Cases

Clark

Boccaccini

Caillouet

et al. 2007

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Actual venire members ( N = 764) completed the Big Five Inventory before going through the jury selection process for 1 of 11 criminal or 17 civil trials. Jury selection decisions by attorneys were not associated with juror personality traits but were associated with juror race and sex, especially in criminal cases. In the 17 juries that deliberated to a verdict ( n = 285), high levels of juror extraversion were associated with not guilty verdicts or verdicts for the defendant, especially in criminal cases. Extraversion was also associated with being selected as a jury foreperson, and foreperson extraversion was associated with longer jury deliberation times and perceived foreperson influence in criminal cases.

show abstract

“…'As a last resort, defense attorneys will encourage their clients to act strangely and lie through their teeth to appear ''insane'''). This scale is important because views on the insanity defense are often distorted and have been linked to verdict rendering (Cutler, Moran, & Narby, 1992;Skeem & Golding, 2001). Moreover, research indicates that the IDA-R can account for significant variance in juror decision making in trials involving the insanity defense (Skeem et al, 2004).…”

Section: Assessing Pretrial Juror Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 98%