Law and Human Behavior

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 495–507

Barring ultimate issue testimony

An “insane” rule?
  • Solomon M. Fulero
  • Norman J. Finkel
Articles

Abstract

This research focuses on one of the major changes wrought by the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: the exclusion of expert mental health testimony on the “ultimate issue,” that is, testimony specifically addressing the expert's opinion that the defendant is sane or insane. Subjects in this research were presented with 1 of 10 variants of an insanity case in which experts testified for the defense, prosecution, both, or neither. The testimony was at one of three levels: diagnostic only, penultimate issue, or ultimate issue. Results showed that level of testimony had no effect on the verdict pattern. There was evidence to suggest that this effect may occur because jurors infer, and/or mistakenly recall, higher levels of expert testimony than was actually presented to them. In addition, general and specific constructs (Finkel & Handel, 1989) that predict verdict yieldedR2 values from .500 to .668 and were not significantly affected by the level of expert testimony. Implications of these findings are discussed.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. American Bar Association (1989).ABA Criminal justice mental health standards. Washington, DC: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association (1982).Statement on the insanity defense. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association (1990). Ethical standards for psychologists.American Psychologist, 45, 390–395.Google Scholar
  4. Bazelon, D. L. (1988).Questioning authority: Justice and criminal law. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
  5. Bonnie, R., & Slobogin, C. (1980). The role of mental health professionals in the criminal process: The case for informed speculation.Virginia Law Review, 66, 427–522.Google Scholar
  6. Ciccone, J. R., & Clements, C. (1987). The insanity defense: Asking and answering the ultimate question.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 15, 329–338.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, D. (1988). Punishing the insane: Restriction of expert psychiatric testimony by federal rule of evidence 704(B).University of Florida Law Review, 10, 541–562.Google Scholar
  8. Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (1982).The insanity defense (Serial No. J-97-126). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  9. Finkel, N. J. (1982, August). Insanity defenses: Jurors' assessments of mental disease, responsibility, and culpability. Paper presented at the 90th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  10. Finkel, N. J. (1988).Insanity on trial. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  11. Finkel, N. J. (1989). The Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: Much ado about nothing.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 403–419.Google Scholar
  12. Finkel, N. J. (1990). De facto departures from insanity instructions: Toward the remaking of common law.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 105–122.Google Scholar
  13. Finkel, N. J., & Duff, K. B. (1989). The insanity defense: Giving jurors a third option.Forensic Reports, 2, 235–263.Google Scholar
  14. Finkel, N. J., & Handel, S. F. (1986, August). “Insanity,” as jurors “see” it. Paper presented at the 94th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  15. Finkel, N. J., & Handel, S. F. (1988). Jurors and insanity: Do test instructions instruct?Forensic Reports, 1, 65–79.Google Scholar
  16. Finkel, N. J., & Handel, S. F. (1989). How jurors construe “insanity.”Law and Human Behavior, 13, 41–59.Google Scholar
  17. Finkel, N. J., Shaw, R., Bercaw, S., & Koch, J. (1985). Insanity defenses: From the jurors' perspective.Law and Psychology Review, 9, 77–92.Google Scholar
  18. Fulero, S., & Penrod, S. (1990). Attorney jury selection folklore: What do they think and how can psychologists help?Forensic Reports, 3, 233–260.Google Scholar
  19. Goldstein, R. L. (1989). The psychiatrist's guide to right and wrong: Part IV: The insanity defense and the ultimate issue rule.Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 17, 269–281.Google Scholar
  20. Grisso, T. (1986).Evaluating competencies: Forensic assessments and instruments, New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  21. Morse, S. (1978). Crazy behavior, morals, and science: An analysis of mental health law.Southern California Law Review, 51, 527–654.Google Scholar
  22. Ogloff, J. (1990). Comparison of the impact of varying insanity defense standards in jury decision making. Paper presented at the 98th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  23. Olsen-Fulero, L., Fulero, S., & Wulff, K. (1989, August). Who did what to whom? Modeling rape jurors' cognitive processes. Paper presented at the 97th annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  24. Pennington, N., & Hastie, R. (1990). Practical implications of psychological research on juror and jury decision making.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 90–102.Google Scholar
  25. Saks, M., & Baron, C. H. (1980).The Use/nonuse/misuse of applied social research in the courts. Cambridge, MA: Abt.Google Scholar
  26. Slater, D., & Hans, V. (1984). Public opinion of forensic psychiatry following the Hinckley verdict.American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 675–679.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Slobogin, D. (1989). The “ultimate issue” issue.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 7, 259–266.Google Scholar
  28. Stalans, L. J., & Diamond, S. S. (1990). Formation and change in lay evaluations of criminal sentencing: Misperception and discontent.Law and Human Behavior, 14, 199–214.Google Scholar
  29. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee of the Judiciacy, House of Representatives (1983).Insanity defense in federal courts (Serial No. 134). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  30. Subcommittee on Criminal Justice of the Committee of the Judiciacy, House of Representatives (1984).Reform of the federal insanity defense (Serial No. 21). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  31. Subcommittee on Criminal Law of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate (1983).Limiting the insanity defense (Serial No. J-97-122). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  32. United States v. Torniero, 735 F. 2d 725 (2d Cir. 1984).Google Scholar
  33. Visher, C. A. (1987). Juror decision making: The importance of evidence.Law and Human Behavior, 11, 1–17.Google Scholar
  34. Weiner, B. (1985). Mental disability and the criminal law. In S. Brakel, J. Parry, & B. Weiner, (Eds.),The mentally disabled and the criminal law, 3d ed. Chicago, IL: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Solomon M. Fulero
    • 1
  • Norman J. Finkel
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyDayton
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySinclair CollegeGeorgetown

Personalised recommendations