PSY 3470 Module 7 Psychology and the Courts Paper: Competency to Stand Trial, Jury Decisions and Judges as Gatekeepers Example

In the Courtroom: Competency, Juries and Whether Judges Can Judge Science

Student Name

Bachelor of Arts in Psychology, Thomas Edison State University

PSY-3470: Forensic Psychology

Mentor Name

Month Day, Year

In the Courtroom: Competency, Juries and Whether Judges Can Judge Science

Introduction

Last spring I was subpoenaed to testify about a 911 call in a criminal trial. While I waited in the hallway, an attorney explained that the trial had been delayed for months because the defendant had first been found incompetent to stand trial and had been treated until he could participate. Sitting in the courtroom later, I watched the jury and wondered how its members would weigh what they heard. This paper examines three ways psychology enters the courtroom: competency evaluations, research on juries and expert testimony about science.

Competency to Stand Trial

Defendants must be competent to be tried. Under the standard set by the Supreme Court in Dusky v. United States, a defendant must have a sufficient present ability to consult with a lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceedings. Competency concerns present abilities, not the defendant's mental state at the time of the offense, which is the question in an insanity defense. Competency evaluations are among the most common forensic evaluations.

What the Research Shows

Pirelli et al. (2011) meta-analyzed 68 studies of competency to stand trial. Among defendants referred for evaluation, about 27 percent were found incompetent. Defendants with a psychotic disorder were far more likely to be found incompetent than other defendants, making diagnosis of psychosis the strongest predictor. Other factors associated with incompetence included unemployment, prior psychiatric hospitalization and lack of education, while the type of charge was not strongly related. The authors noted that most incompetent defendants can be restored to competency with treatment, often medication, within months.

Jury Decision-Making

Devine et al. (2001) reviewed 45 years of empirical research on deliberating juries, covering more than 200 studies. The strength of the evidence was the most important influence on verdicts. Other factors had smaller effects: characteristics of defendants and victims, pretrial publicity, the judge's instructions and the jury's decision rule, such as requiring a unanimous verdict. The authors found that the initial majority view of jurors usually predicted the final verdict, though deliberation could shift outcomes, and that juries required to reach unanimous decisions deliberated longer and considered minority views more fully than those allowed majority verdicts.

Can Judges Evaluate Science?

Since the Supreme Court's 1993 decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, federal judges and many state judges act as gatekeepers, deciding whether expert scientific testimony is reliable enough to be heard. Kovera and McAuliff (2000) tested whether judges could do this. They asked circuit court judges in Florida to evaluate a description of a study that an expert planned to present, varying whether the study had serious methodological flaws, such as a missing control group or a confound, and whether it had appeared in a peer-reviewed outlet. Judges were relatively insensitive to the flaws, rating flawed and valid studies similarly, and few judges would admit the evidence in any condition. The authors concluded that judges may need training in scientific methods to serve as effective gatekeepers.

Improving How Courts Use Psychology

The research suggests several reforms. Competency evaluations should be prompt and followed by timely treatment, since defendants often wait long periods in jail before restoration. Jury instructions written in plain language and procedures that encourage full deliberation may improve decisions. Training judges in research methods, and allowing courts to appoint neutral experts to explain scientific evidence, could help judges distinguish strong from weak science.

Expert Witnesses and Bias

Expert witnesses are retained by one side, which can create pressure, as the bias research in the first module showed. Courts and professional guidelines expect experts to be objective, to explain the limits of their methods and to avoid advocating for the side that retained them.

My Testimony

When I testified, the attorneys asked me to describe exactly what the caller had said. I realized that my account, like an eyewitness's, could be shaped by what I had heard since. Reading my original call notes before testifying, and saying when I did not remember, felt more honest than filling gaps.

Jury Instructions

Research on jury comprehension shows that jurors often misunderstand standard instructions on legal concepts such as reasonable doubt. Rewriting instructions in plain language, and giving written copies to jurors, improves understanding in studies, a low-cost reform courts can adopt.

Restoring Competency

Most defendants found incompetent are restored with treatment, usually medication and education about court procedures. Long waits for hospital beds, however, keep many defendants in jail for months before treatment begins, a problem several states have addressed with community-based restoration programs.

Eyewitness Evidence in Court

The research from the previous module returns in the courtroom, where jurors often trust confident eyewitnesses. Some courts now allow expert testimony on eyewitness memory or give jury instructions explaining factors that affect accuracy, an example of research reaching the courtroom through both judges and juries.

Diversity on Juries

Research suggests that diverse juries deliberate longer and consider more facts than homogeneous ones, supporting efforts to draw jury pools from the whole community.

Limits

Competency studies vary in how evaluations were done. Many jury studies use mock jurors and simplified trials. Kovera and McAuliff studied judges in one state with one scenario.

Conclusion

Pirelli, Gottdiener and Zapf showed that about a quarter of defendants referred for competency evaluation are found incompetent, mainly those with psychosis, and that most can be restored, Devine and colleagues showed that evidence strength drives jury verdicts and Kovera and McAuliff showed that judges may struggle to judge scientific quality. Psychology helps courts by assessing defendants, studying how decisions are made and teaching legal decision-makers how to weigh evidence, and the course ends where many cases do, with people trying to reach fair judgments under uncertainty.

References

Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. B., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7(3), 622-727. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8971.7.3.622

Kovera, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2000). The effects of peer review and evidence quality on judge evaluations of psychological science: Are judges effective gatekeepers? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 574-586. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.574

Pirelli, G., Gottdiener, W. H., & Zapf, P. A. (2011). A meta-analytic review of competency to stand trial research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17(1), 1-53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021713