By Thursday of every week, you should have completed the activities associated with 1 project. You should blog about your experience as a comment to the blog posting of that particular project. Your blog comment can be largely experiential--tell us what it was like to do the project and what you learned. Products associated with the project and a more detailed analysis of the project will go in your portfolio (see the Portfolio blog post).
Project #6 - Amicus Brief Analysis
Choose an Amicus Brief related in some way to psychology. Read the brief, find newspaper accounts about the case (if available), find case law, and other sources related to the topic (these might be journal articles on the psychological issue in general, websites, or blogs), and write an analysis of the legal and psychological issues. Remember, your comment here, is about what your topic is and your experience researching it. What goes in your portfolio are all the above products and your analysis.
When researching Amicus Briefs I came across many interesting briefs. I have talked about amicus briefs and their development is other classes but have never actually ready through one. The one that I ended up settling on has to do with the death penalty for juveniles. The idea here of the amicus brief is to discuses the scientific evidence that has supported the 1989 verdict that juveniles do not have the moral capacity to justify the death penalty for their sentencing. Juveniles are seen as having a decreased sense of reason and self discipline, and have an increased sense of compulsive behavior. It was stated that individuals who were 16 and 17 were not viewed as doing something unconstitutional and that they had an increased risk of wrongful conviction. Interestingly enough I have already done the project on wrongful conviction and it would be interesting to see and compare the ideas about why people feel there is an increased risk for wrongful conviction of juveniles vs. adults considering the numerous proven cases for adults too yet the death penalty is still being enforced. Under this brief it also supports the idea that mentally retarded persons are not to be given the death penalty either due to their mental capacity of moral decision. Interestingly enough when reading this brief I found that 7 out of the 50 states have executed a juvenile in the past 30 years taking into consideration that only 1/3 of the states permit death penalty.
After doing the project on wrongful convictions I became very interested in reading other articles that demonstrate the same situations. Therefore, for one of my amicus briefs I decided to focus on one regarding wrongful convictions. Many of the wrongful convictions are based on inaccurate recollection of memory, the influence of eyewitness testimony, and the psychological factors that influence them both. In this brief the decision of Mr. Fords (the cases used to demonstrate the use of the amicus brief) sentencing is demonstrated when certain information was not allowed into the court. Therefore, they were unable to see how some one of facts that were presented from eye witness testimony impacted the wrongful conviction. There are four main arguments presented in order to support the idea of wrongful conviction. The first argument states that mistakes in eye witness testimony result in the most wrongful convictions. In an earlier project I wrote about a gentleman who was wrongly convicted because his niece (who was approximant 6-7 at the time) stated that she saw her uncle kill her grandmother; when in all actually it was not him at all. In fact, when they did prove he was not the killer and found the person who was guilty of killing her grandmother the two gentlemen did resemble each other. The second argument present in the amicus brief states that evidence like contextual conditions impact the witness’s accuracy in correctly picking out the criminal. The third argument is that without an expert testimony the juries are not able to make an educational decision regarding how the person went about identifying the suspect as the victim; therefore, resulting in more wrongful conviction. The last argument is that without expert witnesses it is hard to show the psychological concepts and ideas that are used when a person uses eye witness testimony. I learned a lot about the ideas of wrongful convictions when researching this amicus brief and found many interesting cases which support the idea.
The following is a link to the amicus brief:
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Kix5a9JKzr8J:www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/resources/amicusbank/Documents/Ford%2520Amicus%2520DEW2.doc+amicus+brief&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
The Amicus Brief I chose is similar to the one above; however, mine has to do with whether the death penalty constitutes as "cruel and unusual" punishment for juveniles. This Amicus Brief was written over the case of Roper v. Simmons, in which a 17 year old juvenile, Simmons, was charged and convicted of a first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After hearing the views of the public and other national organizations, the court determined that juvenile executions violated the eighth amendment. While researching this case, I came up with several interesting websites. I learned that Simmons was raised in an abusive and dysfunctional family environment, had a mental condition, and a drug dependency. All of which, could have greatly influenced his decision to murder. I also found websites showing the evolution of a child's brain into an adult brain, exemplifying why juveniles should not be sentenced to the death penalty. Then I also found several articles reviewing the case of Roper v. Simmons and their take on the issue.
From my abnormal psych class last semester and my post earlier in the week (Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California), I decided to look up the amicus brief concerning this case.
After the Tarasoff case, psychologists were given the duty to warn potential victims if one of their clients makes a threat to them. In order to do this, they must breach the confidentiality of their client.
The amicus brief I chose talks about all of the potential repercussions of the duty to warn. First, it is argued that psychologists do not have the ability to predict violence. The next argument is that it is "incapable of operational definition" - nobody really knows what is considered violent and how to go about warning the potential victim.
Of all of the arguments made, but the most important arguments concern confidentiality. Obviously, if a therapists warns a potential victim that their client has threatened them, they are going against the confidentiality of their client. It is also argued that if this confidentiality is broken, the client may cease attendance to therapy sessions which could inevitably make the situation worse.
Another argument is the idea that warning a potential victim may cause them great anxiety and disrupt their lifestyle without cause. This meaning that in the most minor or circumstances where a threat is made but no action is likely to be taken by the client, the therapist will have to report the incident anyway, causing unwarranted fear, etc.
It is also feared that reporting an incident will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. Clients who have been essentially labeled as violent because the therapist was forced to report it, may in fact become violent as a result of such label.
I enjoyed reading this particular amicus brief because I am really interested in this case due to the fact that it has had quite an impact on the clinical field which I am interested in going into down the road. Before reading this, I was unaware of all of the negative views on the idea of the duty to warn.
The duty to warn, from a civilian stand point, seems like an excellent idea. If this law was enforced before the Tarasoff incident, the whole incident may have been avoided. From a therapist point of view (which I am obviously not), the duty to warn puts a lot of responsibility on you as well as liability issues. If you don't warn a potential victim and something happens, your butt is on the line. On the other hand, if you are forced to report every little incident that likely will not result in anything, you will be infringing on the confidentiality of your client. From discussions in my seminar class about abnormal psychology, I can foresee therapists spending a huge amount of time reporting incidences because of the duty to warn law that they otherwise would not have.
For example, in seminar, we were talking about putting clients who report suicidal thoughts on antidepressants instantaneously. If this were the case, according to my professor, nearly every client that seeks treatment will be put on antidepressants as most of them report suicidal thoughts. Antidepressants are not candy, so they should not be handed out like it; much like every threat may really result to nothing, so they should not be required to be reported.
Anyway, if you are interested, you can find the amicus brief here:
http://archive.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/amicus/405694.pdf
The Amicus Brief case that I chose was Illinois v. Perkins, where the case was about an undercover agent who stayed in the cell block with Perkins as another inmate trying to find out information about a murder. Perkins was in jail for other charges and talked to the agent about the murder, saying he did it and all the details behind the murder itself. The agent then had Perkins on a silver platter. Perkins tried to rule that he was not giving his Miranda rights. The court ruled that in the instance of undercover work, Miranda rights need not to be said to the convict. Finding this case was rather easy, the website I looked them up in is listed below.
Illinois v. Perkins case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=496&invol=292
Brief Cases:
http://www.aele.org/USCami.html
Upon searching for Amicus Briefs online - I came across one on the death penalty in regards to juveniles. This case was for Roper v. Simmons which took place in 1993. This case challenged the current argument of whether people 16-17 years of age should be charged as an adult, rather than a child (at this age). In this case Simmons (17 at the time of the crime) even at admitted to the murder during trial, then appealed the case. Each court upheld the previous guilty verdict of receiving the death penalty. Simmons eventually found a court to overturn the previous ruling and had his sentence reduced to life in prison without chance for parole. (This can be attributed to a similar case in 2002 (Atkins v. Virginia) in which the suspect was found to be mentally retarded. This in turn led to the challenge of whether "the death penalty infringes on our 8th amendment rights" -- cruel and unusual punishment for the age 16-17.
Roper v. Simmons
http://www.abanet.org/crimjust/juvjus/simmons/simmonsamicus.html
The Amicus Brief I found was called Terry v. Ohio. This took place in 1968 and was about an officer who searched three men on the street because he believed to have probable cause that they were going to rob a store and were most likely armed. The problem that arose in this case was the protection by the 4th Amendment that states "no search or seizure." The officer argued that the 4th Amendment was justified by the 14th Amendment that states "protects people, not places." The officer was protecting himself as well as others that may have been walking outside at the time of the arrest, which was about 2:30 in the afternoon. Two of the three men had pistols in their overcoats and were charged with carrying concealed weapons. The judge concluded that the officer had a reason to seach the men because he believed that something suspicious was happening. He did identify himself as an officer and only searched their outer clothing to find the weapons. The officer was only protecting himself and others because the three men could have gotten upset and used the weapons against the officer.
I found this really interesting becasue I did not know that one Amendment could cancel another one out. I agree with the officer's decision to search the three men because they looked to be on their way to rob the store and put other people in danger. The officer has also been an officer and a detective for almost 40 years, so he should know how to spot someone who is suspicious.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=392&invol=1
Before I conducted this project I was a little confused about what a Amicus Brief was. While researching I found ones of many different subjects. However, I can across a case that was very disturbing to me. In Juneau Alaska a student was denied his right to freedom of speech. This case is Morse v. Frederick (2007). A student was suspended from school after holding up a sign that the principle view as pro-drug. The student did not do this on school grounds or even during school hours. This was on a public street and before the high school senior arrived at school for the day. The biggest question here is; did the principle take away the students first amendment right by expelling him? There were many people upset by this and I found that everyone had an opinion.
I too didn't really know what an amicus brief was either. So I did a little research to get informed.
The case I read about was Davis v. United States. Davis, a member of the US Navy waived his right to counsel when he was questioned by the Naval Investigative Service over a murder of another sailor. Davis spoke to agents for about an hour and a half before he said "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer" The agents then asked him if he was requesting a lawyer to which he replied he was not. They took a break and he was reminded of his rights, however, he continued to speak for another hour before he asked for a lawyer to be present and wouldn't say another word. When this case was taken to trial a military judge denied his request to suppress statements made during the interview since he mentioned a lawyer. The judge said that mentioning he should speak with a lawyer was not the same as asking for one. He was convicted of murder. I found this to be interesting because 1. It wasn't the U.S. dealing with it, it was military court. 2. Just from my own basic knowledge you should never speak with out a lawyer present. 3. I don't understand he would mention that he should speak with a lawyer, but not ask for one and continue speaking.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=512&invol=452
In the People V. Gil a man was being charged with murder for throwing a 5 gallon bucket filled with spackling compound off of a roof which subsequently struck a polic officer, killing him on impact. The prosecution argued that the horizontal distance the bucket traveled was far enough to indicate intent to do harm, rather than to simply create a diversion or scare the officers.
The defense brought in a cognitive psychologist who was an expert on "intuitive physics" to testify that most people are not able to accurately judge how far (horizontally) a falling body will travel before it hits the ground. In essence people are bad judges of trajectory; very, very bad in fact. This was used to create reasonable doubt, that the man could have intended to create a diversion, as he testifed to, but misjudged how hard he was throwing the bucket.
I found this brief absolutely fascinating, and was able to track down several short newspaper articles written during the trial (included in my project). Originally I couldn't believe how this guy got convicted since the expert testimony seemed so good but upon further review it made more sense. It was a good example of how expert testimony does not always win over the jury, even if the testimony is quite good.
The psychology invovled deals with sensation and perception, cognitive psychology, and lay-knowledge.
I chose to talk about the amicus brief of Kevin Keith V. The State of Ohio. This was filed by the Innocence Network. Kevin Keith was sentenced to death for the murder of three people. He wanted a new case because he later found out that the prosecution kept evidence from him that proved someone else commited the crimes. Also, he found that the eyewitness testimony was false. After finding out this information and appealing to the court, he was denied. The Innocence Network created the brief to exlplain why Keith should get a new trial.
The Brief I found was submitted by a psychologist from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. The case it was for was McConnell v. the Federal Election Commission, which was actually a fairly well known case about a federal bill which would limit how funding for elections and campaigns would take place. I know what you are asking yourself, in what way could this possible relate to psychology? The professor who wrote my article is an expert in the field of educational psychology, and how the adolescence brain develops. He wrote this brief to support adolescences being able to donate money to political parties, a practice which the bill intended to halt. He thought they should be allowed, because from the ages of 12-13 on, adolescences thought of politics essentially the same as college students, and this helps encourage democratic participation. I had a difficult time searching for this brief, and really any brief. IT took a fair amount of time before I found one which related to psychology, and was not just an argument over random laws and interpretations. However, this was an interesting brief because I am in the education field.
My brief this week deals with an issue we have discussed at length in class, eye witness identification, its reliability and how it is used in a court of law. The case that it was entered into was that of Tony Ford, a man accused of murder. Ford claims that he only unknowingly drove away the actual murderers. Tony appears to be on death row for his crimes, there is a lot of material available about people claiming is innocence, however it was difficult for me to find anything about his current status, and his trial specifically on the internet. The case took place in the early 90’s and appears to be one of the first were evidence was brought against eye witness testimony.
The case I chose for the Amicus Brief Analysis was the Illinois v. Wardlow case. In this case a man was charged with possessing an illegal fire arm. The man was located in a hot zone where criminal activity was very high, as soon as he saw the police walking down the street, the suspect took off running and the police chased him down and frisked him, only to find a concealed weapon. I personally believe the cops were right on this one, I mean if your not guilty, then why would you run? And yes the question came up if the cops violated the man's 4th amendment, but it still falls under the fact that he ran away when the cops were not even going after him. More on this case can be found at the website below.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=98-1036