Medication state at the time of the offense: Medication noncompliance, insight and criminal responsibility.

This study used a mixed quantitative-qualitative methodology to examine whether mock jurors considered a defendant's meta-responsibility - specifically, the defendant's medication noncompliance and degree of insight into his/her schizophrenia - when determining the person's criminal responsibility. The degree of expert witness explanation regarding these factors was also varied. Participants (n = 173) were grouped into 30 juries, randomized across five conditions, and shown mock testimony and attorney arguments based on a real not guilty by reason of insanity court case. Linear mixed-modeling analysis showed that manipulations of medication compliance, insight, and expert testimony elaboration did not predict differential verdict and meta-responsibility outcomes. Nevertheless, qualitative exploration of focus groups from five juries (n = 29) indicated that participants across groups strongly considered meta-responsibility, but did so in a way that, along with a host of other considerations, suggested mock jurors were unable and/or unwilling to follow their duties as the triers of fact. Implications for legal participants, expert witnesses, and researchers are discussed.

An update and expansion on the role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 in United States case law.

An individual's risk for future violent behavior may be considered in various legal contexts, including civil commitment, criminal sentencing, or suitability for parole. Among the assessment tools forensic evaluators use to assess violence risk are the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, ) and the Historical Clinical Risk Managment-20 (HCR-20)/Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20V3 ) (Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, and Douglas, Hart, Webster, & Belfrage, , respectively). Previous surveys and case law research suggest that these measures are widely used and perceived to be useful in aiding forensic clinicians. This study provides an update to Vitacco, Erickson, Kurus, and Apple () and examines the use of the HCR-20 and VRAG in United States case law. A LexisNexis review revealed 134 cases decided between 1 January 2010 and 21 December 2016 that included the HCR-20, VRAG, or both. Results revealed that these measures are typically introduced by the prosecution to inform opinions regarding general violence risk. In addition, consistent with previous research, these data suggest the introduction of the HCR-20 and VRAG is rarely challenged and, when challenged, these challenges are rarely successful. However, data suggest that courts and parole boards may focus on specific risk factors (e.g., lack of insight) at the expense of other, more objective factors. Finally, we offer suggestions for clinicians who have transitioned to the newest version of the HCR-20.

Thin slice expert testimony and mock trial deliberations.

This study examined impressions of expert witness testimony in a not guilty by reason of insanity defense on two outcomes: witness's credibility and verdict. Borrowing in part from the "thin slice" methodology, we assessed outcomes in a 2 (deliberating vs. non-deliberating jurors) × 3 (length of videotaped testimony) between-subjects design. In 30 mock juries, 188 participants viewed the testimony by a forensic psychologist; then half of the juries deliberated. Thinner slices of the testimony were defined by the lower (30s long) and upper (5 min long) temporal bounds in the literature. The third, fuller testimony condition was 10 min long and served as the accuracy marker for the shorter sliced exposures. We aimed to explore potential consequences to jurors relying on impressions of the expert, and his or her opinion, and to test that effect post deliberation. Accounting for deliberation, brief impressions of expert credibility generally exerted a similar influence on credibility to fuller considerations. The essential finding was that a two-way interaction emerged from time slice and deliberation on verdict for jurors in the 30s condition. Overall, predictive accuracy was found in the 5 min slice, yet accuracy was not supported in the predictions based on the shortest slice. Individually-formed impressions are not likely to translate to the verdict ballot post-deliberation. Instead, brief impressions are likely to be heavily influenced by deliberation. Implications for understanding how impression-based testimony evaluations translate from the jury box to the deliberation room are discussed.