Stranger at the gate: the effect of the plaintiff's use of an interpreter on juror decision-making.

There exists a substantial literature examining the effect on juror decision-making of extraneous demographic characteristics of plaintiffs and defendants. In most of these studies, members of groups that are perceived as being minorities or as belonging to one of a variety of outgroups (lower socioeconomic status, immigrants) are treated more harshly by jurors, or are perceived as being less deserving or credible. In this study, the authors examine treatment by jurors of a relatively less well investigated outgroup: that of the non-English speaker. An experiment was conducted in which actual jurors in a large urban county were randomly assigned to view a videotape of a civil case. Three versions of the videotapes were identical except that, on one, the plaintiff required an interpreter to communicate and it is approximately three minutes longer than the other two. On the other two versions, the plaintiff spoke English, but differed in ethnicity (Hispanic or Anglo). The findings showed that the non-English-speaking plaintiff did not fare worse than the English speakers, and, in fact, was awarded higher mean damages than either of the English speakers.

Empathy or objectivity: The forensic examiner's dilemma?

Examiners are ethically bound to manage personal biases that may infect their expert opinions. Empathy-related issues that lead to bias in forensic assessment of adjudicative competence arise in evaluation interactions with defendants (therapeutic empathy) and from examiners' personal views of issues that these assessments address (empathy-bias). This article first summarizes flexible adjudicative competence legal standards that invite bias by forensic experts. Then, after reviewing the therapeutic empathy issue, the article examines empathy-bias and its effects on the development of expert opinions. The authors assert that, properly managed, the often assumed dilemma between empathy and objectivity is a false one. Using case law, research psychology, and professional guidelines, the authors first emphasize that examiners must actively generate plausible alternative explanations of evaluation data as they form their opinions, not afterwards. Then the authors present a practical model to help experts develop opinions that best explain the data while minimizing empathy-bias.

Therapeutic risk management of clinical-legal dilemmas: should it be a core competency?

Therapeutic risk management of clinical-legal dilemmas achieves an optimal alignment between clinical competence and an understanding of legal concerns applicable to psychiatric practice. Understanding how psychiatry and law interact in frequently occurring clinical situations is essential for effective patient care. Successful management of clinical-legal dilemmas also avoids unnecessary, counterproductive defensive practices.

Spanish translations of Miranda warnings and the totality of the circumstances.

Spanish-translated Miranda warnings are administered annually to thousands of Hispanic custodial suspects. In examining 121 Spanish translations and their English counterparts from 33 states, the lengths of Miranda warnings were generally comparable but marked differences were observed in the reading levels for individual Miranda components. The adequacy of Miranda translations varies markedly from minor variations to substantive errors. The most serious problems involved the entire omission of Miranda components; several omissions were observed in the Spanish translations for even the basic rights to silence and counsel. More commonly, Miranda discrepancies involved dissimilar content with a substantial trend toward more information in English than Spanish versions. Findings related to the Miranda translations, different word lengths, and varied reading levels are discussed using the totality of circumstances as its framework.

Without thinking: impulsive aggression and criminal responsibility.

In the U.S. the decision to impose criminal responsibility rests on an assumption about the defendant's decision to engage in proscribed conduct. We punish only those who we believe had the capacity to make a choice. In an increasingly violent world, the criminal law and the assumptions upon which it rests are relentlessly tested. A new generation of neuro-imaging technologies offers to provide insights into structural and functional abnormalities in the brain that may limit the autonomy of many dangerous offenders and unravel the fabric of the criminal justice system. How will the results of these technologies be received by the courts--are they relevant to existing formulations of the prima facie case, the insanity defense, or mitigation of sentence; will changes in the science or the law be required to accommodate this knowledge? The new generation of technologies may appropriately play a role in assessing culpable mental states only if they are also reliable. This short article takes on these and a host of other related questions at the intersection between science, law, and science fiction.

The language of Miranda warnings in American jurisdictions: a replication and vocabulary analysis.

Miranda warnings are remarkably heterogeneous in their language, length, and content. Past research has focused mostly on individual Miranda warnings. Lacking in generalizability, these studies have limited applicability to both public policy and professional practice. A large-scale survey by R. Rogers et al. [2007b, Law and Human Behavior, 31, 177-192] examined Miranda warnings from across the United States and documented striking differences in the length, content, and reading comprehension. In moving from single jurisdiction studies to nationally representative research, the replication of the Rogers et al. survey is essential. With an additional 385 general Miranda warnings, most of the original findings were confirmed; this replication allows Miranda researchers to use findings based upon nationally-representative warnings for their subsequent research. Beyond reading comprehension, the study makes an original contribution to the understanding of Miranda vocabulary that is often infused with abstruse words and legalistic terms. It provides the first analysis of sentence complexity, which affects both Miranda comprehension and retention. As a result of these analyses, preliminary guidelines are provided for increasing the comprehension and understanding of Miranda warnings.

An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: comprehension and coverage.

Miranda warnings enshrine the constitutional rights of custodial suspects against self-incrimination. However, the wording and sentence complexity of Miranda warnings and waivers vary dramatically from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This study is the first extensive investigation of Miranda warning variations examining 560 Miranda warnings from across the United States. With Flesch-Kincaid reading comprehension as a useful metric, Miranda warnings varied from very simple comprehension (i.e., grade 2.8) to requiring postgraduate education. Miranda warnings are composed of five components (e.g., silence and evidence against you); marked variations were also observed in the comprehensibility of individual components. On average, the Miranda warning component on "continuing rights" requires a reading comprehension level six grades higher than the comparatively simple expression of the right to silence. Similar analyses were conducted on Miranda waivers. The content of these warnings differed on such issues as communicating (a) when access to an attorney would be granted (e.g., 45.9% specified only "during questioning") and (b) explicitly that indigent legal services were free (e.g., 31.8% directly informed suspects). Finally, the study identified representative Miranda components at different levels of reading comprehension as a template for further research.

The standard of care in suicide risk assessment: An elusive concept.

Suicide risk assessment is now a core competency requirement in the residency training of psychiatrists. The purpose of suicide risk assessment is to identify modifiable or treatable acute, high-risk suicide factors, and available protective factors that inform patient treatment and safety management. The standard of care varies according to state statutory definitions. Heretofore, most states adopted an average physician or "ordinarily employed standard." Currently, more states are adopting a "reasonable, prudent physician" standard. No single source or authority defines the standard of care for suicide risk assessment. Evidence-based psychiatry can inform clinicians' suicide risk assessments. Carefully documented risk assessments will assist the courts in evaluating clinicians' decision-making process.

On sound and unsound mind: the role of suicide in tort and insurance litigation.

Suicide continues to be a recognized as a crime by common law in a few states. In those jurisdictions, the beneficiary of a claim must prove that the individual who attempted or committed suicide was of unsound mind, to avoid having the patient's act declared illegal, which would bar recovery of the claim. In malpractice and insurance cases, expert testimony is required regarding the mental state of the individual who attempted or committed suicide. Psychiatric testimony varies widely, depending on the legal definition of "unsound mind" and the highly subjective interpretation of legal definitions. Some experts equate suicide with an unsound mind, whereas others apply M'Naghten criteria. Some psychiatrists who disagree with criminalizing suicide refuse to participate in these proceedings. In suicide malpractice cases, the appropriate function of the expert witness is to provide testimony about the standard of care. When experts attempt to testify about "sound or unsound" mind, they must be mindful of the imperfect fit between psychiatry and the law.