COVID-19 exacerbates existing system factors that disadvantage defendants: Findings from a national survey of defense attorneys.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has impacted many facets of daily life and the legal system is no exception. Legal scholars have hypothesized that the effects of the pandemic may contribute to more coercive plea bargains (Cannon, 2020; Johnson, 2020). In this study, we explored defense attorneys' perceptions of whether and how the plea process has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. HYPOTHESES: This study was exploratory, and we made no a priori hypotheses. METHOD: We surveyed 93 practicing United States defense attorneys about their perceptions of whether and how the pandemic has affected court procedures, plea-bargaining and prosecutorial behavior, and defendant decision-making. We conducted semistructured follow-up interviews with 13 defense attorneys to help contextualize the survey responses. RESULTS: The majority of defense attorneys (81%, n = 76) reported that the plea process had changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, and that they experienced difficulty contacting and communicating with their clients, especially those who were detained. Two thirds of defense attorneys (n = 42) who said the plea process had changed thought that prosecutors were offering more lenient deals. One third of defense attorneys with detained clients (n = 23) reported having had clients plead guilty due to COVID-19 related conditions who might not have under normal circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of defense attorneys reported that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted their ability to access and advise clients, and they believed that leverage in plea negotiations had shifted further to individual prosecutors. At the same time, the attorneys reported that prosecutors were offering more lenient deals, painting a complex picture of the plea negotiation process during the pandemic. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

State of the States: A survey of statutory law, regulations and court rules pertaining to guilty pleas across the United States.

A psycholegal research agenda on guilty pleas is in its nascent stage. Multijurisdictional surveys of related law and policy may advance this research agenda by focusing investigators on the specifics of existing policies and motivating cross-jurisdictional comparisons of diverse policies. We thus conducted a systematic, national survey of statutes, regulations and court rules across the United States pertaining to nine aspects of the guilty plea process, including sentencing differentials, collateral consequences and waiver of rights, which have been identified in existing legal and psycholegal research and commentary. Following a discussion of these issues, including legal concerns and existing research findings, we present the results of our systematic survey. We supplement this review with a non-systematic sampling of appellate case law. Broadly, there was notable diversity in whether and how jurisdictions approached these issues. We discuss general and specific implications of our findings for future research, emphasizing the importance of data on actual policies and procedures to the design of studies that may contribute to evidence-based criminal justice policy.

Guilty pleas of youths and adults: Differences in legal knowledge and decision making.

Few studies have examined differences in the guilty plea decisions of youth and adults. In interviews with 64 youth (X = 15.9, SD = 1.2) and 56 adults (X = 38.5, SD = 11.5) who pleaded guilty to felonies in New York City, we found important differences between the youths and adults in their understanding of the plea process, the factors they considered when making decisions, and their rationales for their decisions. Youth were less likely to recognize that a guilty plea resulted in a criminal record and to understand the trial process, and they reported having considered fewer potential outcomes in their decision making than adults. Like adults, youth overwhelmingly reported pleading guilty for reduced charges or penalties, but were substantially less likely than adults to understand the nature of the rights they were waiving. Our findings raise the question of whether the assumption of competence for youth is reasonable, and whether steps to assess youth understanding and decisional competence should be taken before youth are allowed to enter into plea agreements. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Gender-intrusive questioning: a survey of expert witnesses.

This paper reports the results of a survey of male and female psychologists with expert witness experience. The survey explored the roles of both expert witness gender and valence of the testimony to provide preliminary empirical data on whether gender in combination with the valence of testimony leads to perceived bias targeted towards female experts. The presence of such bias might diminish the credibility of the expert and subsequently the proffered testimony and, thus, undermine the legal system as effective fact-finder by leading to decision-making based on extra-legal factors.

Examining pretrial publicity in a shadow jury paradigm: issues of slant, quantity, persistence and generalizability.

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of pretrial publicity (PTP) on mock juror decision making. Specifically, we examined the influence of quantity and slant of the PTP (proprosecution vs. prodefense), the persistence of PTP effects over time, and whether the PTP effects demonstrated in research laboratories would also occur in more naturalistic settings (generalizability). Using a shadow jury paradigm we examined these effects using a real trial as stimulus. Mock jurors included 115 jury-eligible community members who were naturally exposed to PTP in the venue in which the actual case occurred and 156 who were experimentally exposed. We found mock jurors were significantly influenced by both the slant and quantity of the PTP to which they were exposed, such that those exposed to proprosecution or prodefense PTP tended to render decision in support of the party favored in the PTP, and those exposed to greater quantities of PTP tended to be more biased. Additionally, PTP effects persisted throughout the course of the trial and continued to influence judgments in face of trial evidence and arguments. A finding of no significant difference in the effect of exposure slant between the naturally exposed and experimentally exposed samples provides support for the external validity of laboratory studies examining PTP effects. This research helps address some of the concerns raised by courts with regard to the durability of PTP effects and the application of laboratory findings to real world settings.

Measuring knowledge of the insanity defense: scale construction and validation.

Given the influence of social conformity and prejudice, defendants pleading not guilty by reason of insanity face the significant challenges of securing fair and impartial juries. Attitudes and knowledge of the insanity defense are factors that may influence levels of impartiality. In the light of this, we set out to develop a scale to examine knowledge levels of the insanity defense and their influence on decision-making. Two studies were conducted to construct a scale designed to assess laypersons' knowledge of the insanity defense. Items measuring knowledge of the insanity defense were based on Perlin's (1995) insanity defense myths. The first study identified particular items in need of revision and subscales that required the development of additional items in order to improve reliability and construct validity in the second study. The second study used the revised scale, demonstrating improved validity and reliability. The scale also had acceptable predictive validity with reference to insanity defense verdicts.