Chat with AI
Deck 9: Section 1: Jury Selection and Trial Procedure
Full screen (f)
Question
Question
Question
Unlock Deck
Sign up to unlock the cards in this deck!
Unlock Deck
Unlock Deck
1/3
Play
Full screen (f)
Deck 9: Section 1: Jury Selection and Trial Procedure
Why is it difficult to evaluate insanity? What factors make it different from the evaluation of competency to stand trial?
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.
• 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.
How do jurors view the insanity defense?
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).
• 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).
What major changes were instituted to the insanity defense after the trial of John Hinckley?
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.
• 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.
Unlock Deck
Unlock for access to all 3 flashcards in this deck.
