Exam 9: Section 1: Jury Selection and Trial Procedure

Correct Answer:

Verified

Main points:
• Studies show that jurors make determination about insanity based on their pre-existing commonsense understanding rather than the legal definitions and standards provided to them.
• Jurors have a hard time understanding the fine nuances and differences between legal definitions.
• Jurors are people and, like most people, they believe common myths about insanity (that the defendant would go free or "get of easy" if found NGRI).

Correct Answer:

Verified

Main points:
• Studies show that forensic experts often disagree on whether the defendant meets the insanity standard.
• Insanity refers to the time of the crime and is always evaluated retrospectively, unlike CST.
• It is often hard to reconstruct the defendant's state of mind as it was in the past (during the commission of the crime).
• The elements of the insanity standard are more vague than those for CST.
• Different jurisdictions have different insanity standards, which makes it difficult to develop uniform tests or techniques for establishing insanity.

Correct Answer:

Verified

Main points:
• The Insanity Defense Reform Act (IDRA) of 1984 rolled back a lot of the progress made in insanity defense area.
• ALI standard was mostly abandoned in favor of M'Nagthen's rule; that is, the volitional prong (ability to control one's action) was dropped and only cognitive prong (knowing right from wrong) was left.
• Affirmative defense was introduced where sanity is presumed and the burden of proving insanity is on the defendant.
• Moreover, the defendant had to prove "by clear and convincing evidence" that he or she was insane during the time of the crime.
• Experts were barred from giving "ultimate issue" testimony about insanity.
• Four states have abolished the insanity defense.