Read Chapter 7 from Minds on Trial.
Review this link: http://www.wisspd.org/htm/ATPracGuides/Experts/ExpertGuidelines.pdf
View these video clips: http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/dirty-jobs/videos/bug-detective.htm (full episode is on netflix if you care to see it).
For this week's blog post, summarize the chapter, and then please reflect on who experts are, what they do, and how they can help a case.
Provide a list of psychological and legal terms you used at the bottom of your post
This chapter of Minds on Trial really caught my attention from beginning to end. I never put very much thought into expert testimony, because I never thought there would be a reason to question it. I am just that naive, I suppose. Before reading this chapter and before being asked to consider the credibility of expert testimony, I would have believed most testimonies blindly. I think I could go as far as attributing this to the fact that I am very susceptible when it comes to things other people tell me. I want to believe what others have to say so much that it makes me very gullible. If you argued that the sky was purple convincingly enough, I would believe you. I should probably work on this. Let’s get back to how this applies to the chapter. In a courtroom, it is easy to abuse the power of this so called “expertise” to sway a jury into believing what you have to say. I’m sure there are naive little jurors, much like myself, who don’t even think about questioning their credibility.
In the chapter, both the defense and the prosecution brought in experts to discuss Stan’s captivity and the psychological repercussions it had. Both had backgrounds working with coercion, torture, and hostages. Another thing I had never thought about is the authority the presiding judge has to pass judgement on the testimonies provided. In the Hooker case, the judge blatantly tells the jury to ignore the definitions Dr. Lunde, the forensic psychiatrist testifying for the defense, provided regarding coercion. The judge interrupted the testimony and even questioned Dr. Lunde about the relevance of his claims. The judge in this case pointed out in a statement to the jury (after their verdict) that experts are paid advocates for whichever side has hired them. This is the point of the chapter that really opened my eyes to the issues that can potentially come about when the prosecution and defense pay experts to testify on their behalf. We have to consider their credentials first and foremost, but from their, we have to be privy to the fact that they are being paid to make a case for a specific side of the argument. We can hope that they are being truthful and not manipulating the jury, but it is hard to always know for sure. It was such an interesting chapter.
Also, bugs. The videos from the Discovery Channel were really gross. They definitely helped solidify my decision to do anything in life except become a forensic entomologist. Yuck. However, the videos do provide an interesting follow up to the slides we looked at in class regarding forensic entomology. The kinds of bugs and their stages of life can tell us a lot about a crime if the right people are available to collect the information. This brings us back to the conversation about experts. Experts can be used for more than just psychological evaluations. People are paid to testify about arson, blood, drugs, handwriting, and many other things. They are used to help the jury understand exactly what has been found and what it could mean. They provide specialized knowledge about topics that are relevant to the cases presented. They can be extremely helpful, but we must be wary of bad testimonies, as in the Hooker case.
Terms: expert testimony, jury, defense, prosecution, judge, forensic entomologists
As chapter seven on the minds of trial book has pointed out experts main purpose is to provide testimony to help judges with technical or specialized materials presented in the case to eventually rule on a legal decision. However, as the chapter and some further research I did points out the relative effectiveness of judges decisions can be controversial, and as we continue to debate and discover throughout the semester jurors can be easily and controversially predisposed to the decisions they make and at times persuaded to any opinion.
The purpose then of expert testimony then begs the question as to its effectiveness and how the reputation and the relative effectiveness of psychological experts, in terms of the legal system and the reputation that encompasses the public view of these experts relate. The question becomes how effective are experts? And how does the psychological field in terms of testimony help or hinder the reputation of the broad term psychology and law?
Chapter seven followed a couple by the names of Cameron and Janice hooker who would go one to offer a ride and later abduct at the time fourteen year old Elizabeth smart. They would go on to sadistically deform her perception of reality and eventually conform her into a submissive state of mind eventually allowing her captures to control her life. The case would transform into a question as how the perpetrators in this case predominately Cameron were able to control their victim so easily through brainwash techniques and so forth. As a result it became clear due to the lengthy time between the actual abduction and to the point where the hooker couple would stand trial after Janice divorced and freed Elizabeth that a question of how someone could control someone so easily, questions on the effects of brainwashing, and so forth would require expert testimony on both sides of the prosecution and the defense.
Interestingly they eventually found the couple guilty and sentenced them to almost a total sentence with all the charges of over one hundred years in prison. However, it was not an easy process as that the defense expert’s explanations were extremely controversial and the judge even stated that he was happy the jurors saw through the defense expert’s idiotic and unintelligent testimony.
This case brought to light the relative negative consequence of expert testimony. They are there for the purpose of brining light to the case through an unbiased and expert field. However, often times the view is, because the relative ease it is to influence the jury that there only purpose is to provide a case for each side. Essentially the perception is that cases transform into a “battle of the experts.” However, this I think is untrue as that I remember the same relative question as the role of expert testimony took place in the case of Daryl Atkins. In that particular case unlike controlling the victim like the case of Elizabeth smart by her perpetrators the hookers through operant conditioning the Daryl Atkins case was a question of mental capacity, mental illness and the relative question of the death penalty. In the Daryl Atkins case, he was accused of murder however expert testimony found on the defense side that he had suffered fairly low IQ, and symptoms that he always seemed to be behind other kids. The prosecuting side however used relative old IQ tests from the seventies, failed to interview school records or family members and concluded that Daryl was performing malingering faking his symptoms. Although this case was more of a question as to whether or not a defendant who is mentally challenged understands the consequences of the death sentence as a deterrent it does relate to the same concepts in the abduction case of Mrs. Smart. Although the Daryl Atkins case would follow multiple appeals, and even the supreme court the jury and the judge found that if the prosecuting side would have simply done a better job in conduction research, and using agreed upon psychological and scientific evaluations through correct expert testimony both sides in the case would have reached the same conclusions that Daryl indeed was not faking and had symptoms of mental retardation.
This case and the case in chapter seven then both personify that the perception of “battle of experts” is actually not true as that it’s not designed to lead to that, because the judge ultimately decides on the credibility of the expert (even though judge perception is also controversial.)
This then leads all the way back to the first blog that we looked at in question of the relative “psychology and law” rather than the perception of “psychology in law.” Expert testimony should be meant to clarity, and aid both sides of the case equally, and not be used unethically or as a way to pursue a specific result that the prosecutor, and or defense expects the case to turn out. All in all the question of “justice” and the role of experts will continue to be controversial specifically in high profile cases, however they should be utilized because if they are used correctly not only do they make or break a case, they ensure that the ruling is indeed just in terms of a legal perspective, and psychological influences as well.
As for whom an expert witness is, is usually by virtue of education, training, experience and so forth have specialized knowledge beyond other individuals, and is sufficient to rely on that testimony in terms of a legal perspective. Expert evidence and testimony on the facts of the case have been allowed as far back as the fifties when the case of Davie V. Magistrates of Edinburgh ruled that a expert called upon by the court may present there expert opinion based on their qualifications in their particular field.
Terms: experts, testimony, operant conditioning, mental illness, Daryl Atkins case (role of experts), death penalty, malingering, deterrent, Davie v. Magistrates of Edinburgh.
Chapter seven, in the book “Minds on Trial,” was not only extremely interesting, but it also showed facts about who experts are and what they do. This chapter was about the abduction and rape of Miss Colleen Stan, an event that took place for over seven years. This poor girl was not only coerced to be Mr. Cameron Hooker’s slave, but she was also made to believe her family members would be killed if she tried to tell anyone about what was happening to her. She was kept locked in a box for many years and was brutally wiped, raped, suffocated, and probably many other forms of physical and sexual torture. The experts in her case debated whether or not Stan was truly “coerced” to the many forms of physical and sexual assault.
The prosecution’s expert, a forensic psychologist who was also an expert in terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion, explained the depth of coercion on a scale from no coercion to brainwashed and stated that Stan was not completely brainwashed was, but was, in fact, coerced. While on the other side sat the defense’s “expert,” who claimed to also be a forensic psychologist who had experience in human captivity and coercion, stated it is not coercion unless you are threated. In other words, saying Hooker threatening her not to tell anyone or else he will kill her family, well that was not coercion. I would just like to take a moment to say that this guy is no expert if he believes that. I would also like to say that he is a sick man because he would rather get paid and help this extremely sick stay out of jail. Sick. This is not what an expert should ever say or do, made me extremely upset. I cannot even begin to explain how mad I was at this guy when I read that.
Anyways, this chapter showed the importance of a true expert’s testimony versus someone who just wants to get paid. I would hope if any of us go on to be experts we will do it to help spread knowledge to others and not just for the money. The pdf from the link help to show all the different types of experts and the payment one could receive if they become one. I myself would like to become a psychologist so for my pay, according to the document, I would receive between $100-$150 per hour of work.
The last part of this assignment was the video. Well, that dirty jobs video just, well, really grossed me out. I am so glad to say that that is not my job nor will it ever be in the future. I believe this video help shows us that there are many types of experts and they have many things they need to dig up or uncover in order to gain the knowledge they have. I believe this helps show us that experts are not only people who sit behind desks interview clients to get to the bottom of their health situation, but that they are also people who are willing to get their hands dirty to uncover the truth and this truth could be about anything. Trying to figure out how long a pig has been dead by determining what the maggots are doing to it, yeah not my idea of fun, but maybe it is someone else’s.
Terms: Coercion, Physical Torture/Assault, Sexual Torture/Assault, Expert, Forensic Psychologist
Chapter seven of the minds on trial book was a very interesting chapter. The reason that it was an interesting chapter was the fact that it talked about the use of expert testimony in criminal cases. The chapter starts off with the story of Colleen Stan. Stan was kidnapped by Cameron and Janice Hooker. Cameron Hooker tortured and sexually abused Stan for seven years. What does all this have to do with psychology? What it has to do with Psychology in two parts. First, the use of expert testimony in criminal cases, and the fact that Stan was allowed to visit her family during the seven year period and never told anyone about what was going on. Why would someone who is being tortured and abused not escape when he/she had the chance? The answer has to do a lot with the mental abuse that the person goes through. According to testimony, Stan was put in a hotbox, she was bound naked for days, she had chains around her neck, she was whipped, and she was hung from the rafters. These are some pretty awful things to put a person through, yet for some reason Stan didn’t escape when she was given the chance. Not only was the physical abuse psychological in a way, there was also psychological abuse. The psychological abuse that the chapter talks about is when Hooker explains to Stan that he is working for a slaving company. He made Stan sign a document whereas she agreed to do all the things that Hooker wanted her to do. This probably had great psychological effects on Stan because of the fact that she thought she would endanger her family is she was to tell them what was going on. Also, the psychological effect of being tortured also probably had something to do with the fact of why Stan didn’t escape. Stan eventually was able to escape with the help of Hookers wife, however, when it was brought to trial, there were two major issues that the prosecution was going to have to face. The first issue was the fact that the wife had helped Hooker in the kidnapping. The second issue was the fact that Stan was submissive and compliant to Hooker. When I read about this in the book, I actually got a little mad. The reason that I got mad was the fact that they were questioning why she went along with these acts if she was uncomfortable with them. Also, why didn’t she try to escape? I personally think that I would have the strength to be able to not go along with being tortured and try to escape. However, I haven’t been through what Stan has been through. The whole ordeal would probably have major psychological effects that would stay with Stan for the rest of her life. The chapter talks about the trial and how when the case started, the defense focused on the issue of compliance of Stan to Hooker over the seven year period. The defense argued the fact that Stan had done all these things willingly done all of the things because of the fact that she didn’t escape when she had the chance. The prosecution rebutted these claims by bring in an expert to testify about the case. This expert was Dr. Chris Hatcher. Hatcher was a known forensic psychologist and was an expert on terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion. According to Hatcher, the reason that Stan didn’t try to escape was due to brainwashing that had taken place while she was under Hookers control. He stated that brainwashing occurred in very few cases however it wasn’t uncommon. The reason that he stated this had happened was the fact that by all the things Hooker did to Stan, he affected her in some way. For example, eliminating sunlight would disorient the person, controlling food, excretion, and other body functions would destroy the person’s sense of privacy and so on. These are all things that led to the brainwashing, also according to Hatcher; all of these things lead the person to depend on the person who is doing it to the person. This would explain why Stan didn’t escape when she was given the chance. The defense tried to counter with the expert testimony of Dr. Donald Lunde; however, he wasn’t as convincing as the other expert. Lunde tried to explain to the jury that coercion was only psychological when the person could be facing death if he/she wasn’t it doesn’t count. The judge didn’t think that this was a good interpretation and told the jury to forget the interpretation. In the end, Hooker was charged with seven out of the eight total charges against him. The chapter ends by talking about how experts are just the “hired guns” of the prosecution/defense. This is an interesting interpretation because it actually makes sense in my eyes. How can you have two experts on the same thing say something completely opposite of each other? In my opinion, experts are only the the people want them to be. The reason that I say this is the fact that the amount of money that they get is extremely large. If I was getting paid to do a large amount of money, I am pretty sure that my opinion would be influenced. This goes back to the idea of experts being “hired guns.” That they basically say whatever the defense wants them to say. Some of the experts can even be paid 130 dollars an hour. That is a large portion of money. This also goes back to the idea that experts are just hired guns for the defense and prosecution. They basically are paid to agree with the side they are on. I mean who would pay an expert to go up and say that your side is the side that is wrong? This can lead to a lot of confusion with expert testimony because it brings up the question of which expert do you trust? This can lead to a different can of worms. What experts do is they are brought in to make information more clearly for the jury. Like in the example of the dead pigs that Mike Rowe had to work with, he was helping the people study the effects of maggots on dead bodies. So an expert can be brought in to testify that this body has been here for two weeks. Experts can be used in many different ways such as to prove that blood splatter couldn’t have possibly come from a beating rather it was from a gunshot. Another thing that they would be used for is to prove what you said happened to the jury. Sometimes the jury needs someone who is an expert to tell them what happened. However, this can bring up problems such as them being paid guns and stuff like that. They can help cases by explaining to the jury that the prosecution or defenses story about the case is actually true or not true. They can verify things that are being said in the case and further explain them to make them clearer. They also can explain the case to the jury in a way that makes it seem more scientific which can eventually help out the prosecution or the defense. Overall this was a very interesting chapter and by the way, the maggots on that show were extremely gross.
Terms: coercion, brainwashing, coercion, forensic psychologist, expert, psychological
Chapter seven of the minds on trial book was a very interesting chapter. The reason that it was an interesting chapter was the fact that it talked about the use of expert testimony in criminal cases. The chapter starts off with the story of Colleen Stan. Stan was kidnapped by Cameron and Janice Hooker. Cameron Hooker tortured and sexually abused Stan for seven years. What does all this have to do with psychology? What it has to do with Psychology in two parts. First, the use of expert testimony in criminal cases, and the fact that Stan was allowed to visit her family during the seven year period and never told anyone about what was going on. Why would someone who is being tortured and abused not escape when he/she had the chance? The answer has to do a lot with the mental abuse that the person goes through. According to testimony, Stan was put in a hotbox, she was bound naked for days, she had chains around her neck, she was whipped, and she was hung from the rafters. These are some pretty awful things to put a person through, yet for some reason Stan didn’t escape when she was given the chance. Not only was the physical abuse psychological in a way, there was also psychological abuse. The psychological abuse that the chapter talks about is when Hooker explains to Stan that he is working for a slaving company. He made Stan sign a document whereas she agreed to do all the things that Hooker wanted her to do. This probably had great psychological effects on Stan because of the fact that she thought she would endanger her family is she was to tell them what was going on. Also, the psychological effect of being tortured also probably had something to do with the fact of why Stan didn’t escape. Stan eventually was able to escape with the help of Hookers wife, however, when it was brought to trial, there were two major issues that the prosecution was going to have to face. The first issue was the fact that the wife had helped Hooker in the kidnapping. The second issue was the fact that Stan was submissive and compliant to Hooker. When I read about this in the book, I actually got a little mad. The reason that I got mad was the fact that they were questioning why she went along with these acts if she was uncomfortable with them. Also, why didn’t she try to escape? I personally think that I would have the strength to be able to not go along with being tortured and try to escape. However, I haven’t been through what Stan has been through. The whole ordeal would probably have major psychological effects that would stay with Stan for the rest of her life. The chapter talks about the trial and how when the case started, the defense focused on the issue of compliance of Stan to Hooker over the seven year period. The defense argued the fact that Stan had done all these things willingly done all of the things because of the fact that she didn’t escape when she had the chance. The prosecution rebutted these claims by bring in an expert to testify about the case. This expert was Dr. Chris Hatcher. Hatcher was a known forensic psychologist and was an expert on terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion. According to Hatcher, the reason that Stan didn’t try to escape was due to brainwashing that had taken place while she was under Hookers control. He stated that brainwashing occurred in very few cases however it wasn’t uncommon. The reason that he stated this had happened was the fact that by all the things Hooker did to Stan, he affected her in some way. For example, eliminating sunlight would disorient the person, controlling food, excretion, and other body functions would destroy the person’s sense of privacy and so on. These are all things that led to the brainwashing, also according to Hatcher; all of these things lead the person to depend on the person who is doing it to the person. This would explain why Stan didn’t escape when she was given the chance. The defense tried to counter with the expert testimony of Dr. Donald Lunde; however, he wasn’t as convincing as the other expert. Lunde tried to explain to the jury that coercion was only psychological when the person could be facing death if he/she wasn’t it doesn’t count. The judge didn’t think that this was a good interpretation and told the jury to forget the interpretation. In the end, Hooker was charged with seven out of the eight total charges against him. The chapter ends by talking about how experts are just the “hired guns” of the prosecution/defense. This is an interesting interpretation because it actually makes sense in my eyes. How can you have two experts on the same thing say something completely opposite of each other? In my opinion, experts are only the the people want them to be. The reason that I say this is the fact that the amount of money that they get is extremely large. If I was getting paid to do a large amount of money, I am pretty sure that my opinion would be influenced. This goes back to the idea of experts being “hired guns.” That they basically say whatever the defense wants them to say. Some of the experts can even be paid 130 dollars an hour. That is a large portion of money. This also goes back to the idea that experts are just hired guns for the defense and prosecution. They basically are paid to agree with the side they are on. I mean who would pay an expert to go up and say that your side is the side that is wrong? This can lead to a lot of confusion with expert testimony because it brings up the question of which expert do you trust? This can lead to a different can of worms. What experts do is they are brought in to make information more clearly for the jury. Like in the example of the dead pigs that Mike Rowe had to work with, he was helping the people study the effects of maggots on dead bodies. So an expert can be brought in to testify that this body has been here for two weeks. Experts can be used in many different ways such as to prove that blood splatter couldn’t have possibly come from a beating rather it was from a gunshot. Another thing that they would be used for is to prove what you said happened to the jury. Sometimes the jury needs someone who is an expert to tell them what happened. However, this can bring up problems such as them being paid guns and stuff like that. They can help cases by explaining to the jury that the prosecution or defenses story about the case is actually true or not true. They can verify things that are being said in the case and further explain them to make them clearer. They also can explain the case to the jury in a way that makes it seem more scientific which can eventually help out the prosecution or the defense. Overall this was a very interesting chapter and by the way, the maggots on that show were extremely gross.
Terms: coercion, brainwashing, coercion, forensic psychologist, expert, psychological
This chapter started off by talking about the abduction of Elizabeth Smart. Elizabeth Smart was a young girl when she was abducted from her home. It was an interesting case to the public because she went along with whatever her perpetrator told her to do and she was taken out in public and did not ever respond to people called her name.
The chapter then goes on to tell the story of Colleen Stan. Colleen was kidnapped after hitchhiking, was kept in a box, whipped and deprived of her basic human rights. Even though the perpetrator, Cameron Hooker’s wife knew about what was going on, she did not stop it for years to come. After she was finally set free and the court trial arrived, a forensic psychologist named Lunde found several different findings in Stan’s defense. He found that she was brainwashed (which is a rare phenomenon) because she was under coercion, or in fear of losing her life by not listening to his commands. This caused her to believe that what he was doing was ok, and that she must listen or worse things could happen. All of this caused her to do things such as obey orders completely, asking for permission to go to the bathroom, perform sexual acts and even not telling her family about “the company” what was going on when she saw him or running away. Lunde said that this all caused her to “consent” to things such as sex, or anything else Hooker asked her to do. Through his expert testimony, he was able to convince the jury that Hooker was indeed guilty of many acts, and was given life in prison. A psychologist in Hookers defense found that Hooker had sadomasochistic paraphernalia, or in other words a dirty obsession with sexual acts that put them into play even if they harmed others. However the jury found that was not an excuse for his actions. Psychologists really helped in the verdict of the case, and put Hooker where he deserved to be.
The website showed me how much psychologists and other expert witnesses and services such as pathologists, DNA testing, forensic toxicologist, drug tests, chemist, and an attorney cost. Most of them cost around 100-200 dollars an hour on average, without travel costs. This interested me to see how much different services cost, and made me realize how much different court cases require these services. It also makes me appreciate those people, because their services make a big difference in the outcome of many trials, especially expert witnesses, attorney and DNA testing.
The video clip from the show “Dirty Jobs” and showed forensic entomologists in action. It showed how they catch the bugs around carcasses and how they use them for evidence. By having this service, they can find out how long a dead body has been there. Also, seeing what different types of bugs are around the body can tell us things about the state of the body and other important information. This could be helpful in some cases, because this type of expert could help us figure out information at the time of the crime, and perhaps tell us something about the perpetrator.
Expert testimonies and services can really be helpful in a trial. It can tell us if someone is guilty without any other significant evidence, such as a DNA/blood test. Other people such as psychologists and attorneys can help defend a client. All in all, expert testimonies helped in Stan’s case, and help give good evidence in many other cases.
Key Words: forensic psychologist, brainwashed, coercion, expert testimony, sadomasochistic paraphernalia, forensic entomologists, pathologists, DNA testing, forensic toxicologist, drug tests, chemist, and an attorney
This week’s reading out of Minds on Trial, talked about a case involving a woman named Stan who was kidnapped by a man named Cameron Hooker. Cameron and his wife Janice kidnapped Stan while she was trying to hitchhike to California. Stan saw that Janice was holding a baby and Cameron seemed to be pretty clean cut. So she proceeded to get into the car with them for a ride. She soon noticed a wooden box that looked rather peculiar. At a gas station that they stopped at Stan thought out fleeing from the Hooker’s. She decided against it and continued to get back in their car. Soon after, she was held with a knife close to her, with Mr. Hooker threatening her. Stan was soon taken back to their house, stripped naked and bound with chains and the wooden box over her head so she could neither hear nor see. She was treated this way for many days straight, only being released to eat, drink, and use the restroom. She also was presented with a contract stating that unless she wanted to be a slave and be harmed by “The Company” she must sign the contract and obey Mr. Hooker. She was then on to refer to Mr. Hooker as Master or Sir. During the 7 months she was held captive she also was put into what seemed like a casket kept underneath the Hooker’s bed. What is even more shocking about the story is what I am going to mention next.
A few key aspects that were looked at involving the kidnapping of Stan were for one, she was allowed to frequently with Mr. Hooker’s permission to go out on jogs unsupervised. Next, she was also many times in public with the Hooker’s where she could have easily drawn attention for help. Thirdly, she was allowed to visit to home and visit her parents unsupervised after not seeing them for 4 months, and yet she still didn’t reveal anything about the kidnapping or what the Hooker’s were doing to her.
Eventually the one who ended all of this was not Stan herself, but rather Janice Hooker, the wife. She became wary that they may be caught. She started attending church and talked to her minister about the “love triangle” that was occurring in her home. She ended up escaping along with Stan when Mr. Hooker was away at work. Janice’s relatives then called law enforcement to fill them in on what had been going on.
Cameron Hooker was then put on trial for not only kidnapping Stan, but also many counts of rape and coercion. The chapter also discusses how Experts are used in court cases as well. Experts are people who are to be a specialist in a subject, they are to share their opinion to the court based on the knowledge they have on the certain subject dealing with the case. Experts can be hired for both sides of the case, the defense or prosecution. They can vary in many different fields such as forensics, psychology, arson, expert witness etc. They can help the case by providing angels to cases that they jury may not have seen. They can also provide better understanding and scientific evidence to certain aspects as well.
In Mr. Hookers trial, 2 experts were used, one supporting the prosecution and one supporting the defense. The expert on the side of Mr. Hooker however, was not very useful in this case in persuading the jury to deem him not guilty. The judge even told the jury after the trial was over that they were very intelligent for not listening to Dr. Lunde and what he had to say about the trial.
Some of the issues that Dr. Lunde brought up were that Stan wasn’t coerced. He shared his own definition of coercion which was after to be disregarded on the judge’s ruling. He also mentioned that Mr. Hooker did not keep her from providing information to her family, therefore she wasn’t coerced.
On the other side, the expert for Stan, talked about how many tactics used by Hooker such as control over the amount of daylight she saw, when she could eat, depriving her of sleep, only letting her use the bathroom 1 time a day, etc. all led to her to be controlled and brainwashed by Mr. Hooker.
With this, the final ruling proved Mr. Hooker guilty and sentenced to over 100 years in prison.
Terms: forensic, psychology, expert witness, coercion, defense, prosecution,
Chapter 7 was about the abduction of 27 year old Colleen Stan. This story was interesting to me and I don’t recall ever hearing about this story previously. The chapter summarizes what Colleen went through, beginning with her decision to hitch hike and accept a ride from Cameron and Janice Hooker. Colleen was held at knife point and bound, gagged, and blindfolded while being forced into a box that blocked out all sunlight. Stan spent years in the Hooker’s basement and endured numerous bouts of torture. Colleen was lied to and was told she now worked for “the company” and that no one could help her. Stan followed Hooker’s orders with compliance and was even allowed to visit her family only to return back to the basement. After summarizing Colleen Stan’s abduction, the last half of the chapter discussed the expert testimonies given during the trial. The prosecution’s expert, Chris Hatcher, discussed the ideas of brainwashing and coercion and how many individuals would give up control and become extremely submissive if put in a similar situation. The defense’s expert, however, claimed that Colleen was not coerced because the definition of coercion does not include threats to other people, specifically meaning Colleen’s family. The defense expert also claimed many of the techniques Hooker used on Colleen were no different from drills used in boot camps.
Experts are specialists in certain areas who are hired by either the defense or the prosecution to help that side when their case. Experts typically meet with the client (either the defendant or the victim), interview them, and then provide their opinion and expertise on the given situation. Experts can help cases by providing mounds of research which support their claims. These claims can greatly persuade a jury to see a new side of things and to either convict or acquit the defendant.
After viewing the link to expert guidelines, I was shocked by how much these people get paid. This opened my eyes to the idea that many experts, though they may not agree with whose side they are on, may look for ways to support that side just for the sake of money. The expert may totally disagree with, for example, the defendant, but may create false data or bias their research just for the amount of money they are receiving. I also noticed that these guidelines stated that “out of state experts are discouraged because of travel costs.” I feel like this guideline may highly restrict one’s case. It seems to me that many of the experts in a case are experts then because of convenient geographical location, not so much because of how well they research things, how well educated they are, and how non-biased they can be. The expert guidelines raised a lot of ethical questions in my opinion.
The video clips were really interesting and changed my idea of an “expert” from just a researcher who sits at a computer all day, to someone who actively goes out and does their job. I feel like the experts in the video clips would have an easier time giving a testimony in court because their science is more physical science. I feel like there would be more black and white, right and wrong answers as opposed to a social science such as psychology. Psychological expert witnesses may have a more difficult time giving expert testimonies because there are so many grey areas in the field and so many places were researchers disagree or where not enough research has been done yet to make claims.
Terms: expert testimonies, jury, defendant, prosecution, coercion, brainwashing
Colleen Stan was held captive by Cameron Hooker for nearly seven years. She was kidnapped by Hooker and his wife Janice while she was hitch hiking to see a friend. During her time in captivity she endured physical as well as sexual assault. She was coerced to sign a contract making her Hooker’s submissive. Hooker had told her that “The Company” would punish her if she did not sign the contract so Stan signed it out of fear. The interesting thing in this case was that in the length of her captivity time she was allowed to leave the house to go jogging while unsupervised and was even allowed to see her family. So why did she not run away or tell someone what was going on?
Throughout Stan’s ordeal she was terrified and Hooker told her that if she told anyone “The Company” would come and kill them. Stan also felt dependent on Hooker because he had been controlling, dominating, and isolating her for years. Colleen Stan was finally able to escape when Janice, Hooker’s husband, came to her senses and finally stood up to her husband. They both ran away and went to authorities.
Expert testimonies were used in this case from both the prosecution and the defense of Cameron Hooker. The prosecution used Dr. Chris Hatcher to help their case. Dr. Hatcher was forensic psychologist (he would have made 100 to 150 dollars an hour for this trial), and he was an expert in coercion, which he used to explain how why Stan did not run from her captor. He said that by Hooker controlling Stan’s eating, bathroom and sleeping habits as well as eliminating sunlight and continued sexual assault and isolation caused Stan to be disoriented and left her with a feeling of dependency on Hooker.
The prosecution then brought Dr. Donald Lunde to the stand who was a forensic psychiatrist (making 125-200 dollars an hour). Lunde testified that the definition of coercion was threatening someone with death and since Hooker did not do that directly with Stan she was not coerced. The judge then had to interject and tell the jury to disregard Lunde’s statement because it was wrong. Lunde also went on to say that what Hooker did do Stan was no different that attention drills used by the Marine Corps. The judge had to interject again to clarify exactly what Dr. Lunde was trying to say. After the jury had passed the guilty verdict and sentenced Hooker to 100 years in prison the judge commended them for not listen to Lunde and having the sense to not let his testimony sway their decision.
Experts are used by both sides to help their case. The proved a sense of superiority in the court room and since they are experts jurors will probably take what they say to heart (respect for authority). I also put trust in the experts but now I’m not so sure. When experts know what they are talking about and put it in a direct manner they can be very helpful to a case. But, as seen by Dr. Lunde, they can word things differently to help their side of the case. This can cause major problems because if the jurors in Colleen Stan’s case has listened to Lunde’s testimony, Hooker could be walking the streets right now. I also found it interesting to look at the cost of these experts. While I understand why they charge so much for their services I do not think that it is entirely fair that just because someone cannot afford and expert they cannot use one, even if it would be vital to their case.
The bug video was gross but it was fun to watch someone get thrown into that situation. It was also somewhat interesting to find out more about the decaying process and how the temperature and maggots can tell you how long something has been dead for.
Terms: respect for authority, coercion, prosecution, defense, forensic psychologist, forensic psychiatrist, judge, assault
Chapter 7 in Minds on Trial is about Expert testimonies and how they affect cases. During these cases there are obviously two sides representing their argument on who is right and who is wrong. This can be very hard to decide which side is telling the truth. Jurors and Judges need to have a clear understanding of the case, these is where experts come in and explain with their professional opinion and kind of fill in the cracks where information is wary. Experts can either weaken or strengthen one side of the case depending on how credible they are as an expert; they can also see the validity of the eyewitness testimonies and whether or not someone can plead insanity. These are some of the things that we have talked about in previous chapters.
Dr. Hatcher was a forensic psychologist and worked on the case of Colleen Hatcher to explain her behavior during and after her seven years held in captivity. Dr. Hatcher specialized in brainwashing and terrorism. He was put on the stand to explain why Stan did not try to escape when she had the chance to, she even visited her family for a couple of days and then went back to her captors. He said this has to do with brainwashing, she believed that they had a power over her and that she just gave up fighting. She was raped, tortured, and neglected for over half a decade, the question was if she was a willing victim.
Dr. Lunde also took the stand to evaluate her behavior on behalf of the defense of Cameron Hooker. Dr. Lunde tried to explain it in terms that the captors were not going to kill her that they were just trying to obtain power over her. The judge frequently interrupted Lunde in saying that his statements were not accurate and should be overlooked by the jury. The jury found Hooker guilty of seven out of the eight counts of rape and kidnapping. He was sentenced to over 100 years in prison. His sentence stood even when he tried to appeal it years later.
Experts are important to cases and give a psychological standpoint to both sides of the crime. It is important that the jury and the judge understand all aspects of the case and the behaviors of the parties involved just like the Stan case. There was however a case talked about in another one of my classes Legal and Social Environment of Business where someone got hit with the golf club, and they tried to say that it was on purpose. They tried to bring in an expert in golf that had trained the man, this was not credible and the expert’s testimony was also overlooked. This shows that experts can be helpful or hurtful in cases where they are not always needed.
The video clip was on forensic entomology, and it showed that they collected flies and maggots feeding on the carcasses to determine the time of death. They collect all kinds of bugs in the carcass to gather evidence within the bugs and the temperature of the maggots. This was really interesting because it shows a different side to forensics and how they find out evidence in helping with certain cases where maggots and other bugs are present.
In the textbook it says that experts have to have a certain type of education or a certain type of relevant experience to the topic. Experts may be called to court to testify if the case pertains to their area of expertise. They can interview the defendant or the eyewitness to get more information related to the case and then they can take what they already know and add it to the actual case experience. The expert testimony can sway the jury in either direction, which can be scary because they can also let the guilty run free.
Terms: expert testimony, eyewitness testimony, jury. judge, guilty, forensic psychologist, entomologist, evaluation, psychological, evidence, and forensics.
Experts can serve many purposes in a criminal court case. There are numerous types of experts and the services they provide are almost unlimited, for the right price of course. As we read in Chapter 7, Minds On Trial, the experts can help or hinder the defense or prosecution equally. The example in chapter 7 explains a judge questioning and eventually dismissing an experts testimony which consequentially hurt the defense. For the amount of money some criminal court experts make, one would hope they are worth every penny.
Chapter 7 focus on a major criminal case that took place in the 1980's and how the expert testimony brought forth by the prosecution helped a great deal. The expert in this case was knowledgeable in the field of coercion and the mental process of individual's who are put in extremely stressful situations. The expert with the most knowledge and well defined research won out in favor of the prosecution. The defense provided a weak expert that simply speculated a definition of coercion to the best of his ability. This type of witness was discussed in the text as a simple hired hand. In some situations a defense or a prosecution will hire an expert to talk in favor of the one writing the check. Whether the information provided during the trail is fully accurate or not is at the discretion of the judge and jury. This type of paid off expert is toxic to the criminal justice system and jurors everywhere. We can see and example of that at the end of Chapter 7 in Minds on Trial.
Experts come from every field with knowledge in every subject. Some of the more rare experts are in the field of decomposition, forensic toxicologist, and serologist. These individuals study the more dirty, grotesque aspects of a crime. Giving a polygraph examination is nothing compared to studying a maturing maggot on a corpse or the blood patterns from a machete swing. I find the topics very intriguing so I took the initiative to watch the full episode of Dirty Jobs: Bug Detective on Netflix. This episode looked at a pig decomposition study area of Purdue University. This episode was not for the weak of stomach! At any rate, there are experts that one can hire to testify in a criminal trial that are very well knowledgeable in this field. The decay of a corpse is complex and effected by many variables; from trash cans to being wrapped in tarps. To understand and be able to professionally testify in these matters is what makes people experts. I can only assume that this is why an expert can charge so much for their services. The amount of knowledge an expert needs to obtain and understand must be overwhelming. As seen in this episode of Dirty Jobs, there are many variables, process, vocabulary, and scientific processes to assessing decomposition.
The ability of an expert to be able to translate their knowledge to a judge and jury is also important. Explaining the complexity of a decaying body is worthless is no one else understands what your talking about or the terms you are using. Experts must be able to paint a picture in the court room to better aid in the court case, via prosecution or defense. Experts are may be a very pricy commodity in the court of law, but considering the amount of knowledge they must posses and actual work they must do; it would be a wise investment for both the prosecution and defense.
Key Terms: criminal trial experts, prosecution, defense, judge, jury, court of law, testify, scientific process, forensic toxicologist, and serologist, polygraph examination, expert testimony, coercion, discretion.
This chapter really interested me yet made me feel very claustrophobic. I followed the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping with my parents, and the whole ordeal seemed a little fishy to me. It is so weird that a man can kidnap a young woman and then take her out in public without her crying for help. I cannot even fathom the amount of "brain washing" or coercion" that goes into making someone believe they are bound to a master of sorts and that there will be severe consequences if they disobey. I had never even heard of Colleen Stan before, but I swear I have seen an episode of Law and Order: SVU that was a close portrayal of her situation. I have never been more appalled in my life at what this women went through. She was abducted when she hitchhiked a ride from a young couple on her way to see some friends. The couple seemed believably safe, they looked clean and the woman even had a baby in the front seat. After being held at knife point, Colleen was taken back to the couples' house and the abuse began. Her head was put in a type of "head box" where she could not see or hear what was going on around her. She was bonded using chains and had her breathing restricted multiple times a day. Not only was she confined to a box under the couples' bed all day, but was only allowed with the permission of the man to use the restroom and eat. The man, Andrew Hooker, made Stan believe that a "Company" would come after her and sell her into sex slavery if she didn't obey him. This lie made her obey Hooker fully as well as the fact that her human rights were taken away and belonged to this man. He made her perform sexual acts daily and to the knowledge of his own wife. Colleen was so messed up to point where she was allowed to go out jogging by herself and was even allowed a visit to her family. During each of these incidents, she did not utter a word about what pain she was going through. How crazy is that? I can't imagine that! It wasn't until Hooker's wife had some divine intervention and let Colleen know that the company didn't exist that Colleen finally fled and sought out help. This opened up into a big trial that was trying to put Hooker away for years and years. One expert that was sought out by the prosecution was a forensic specialist who specialized in terrorism and brainwashing situations that spent time studying Colleen and what she went through. What really surprised me was that he said she wasn't brainwashed because brainwashing really is not a common occurrence, but rather she was "coerced". He also put brainwashing on an extreme end of the spectrum, coercion in the middle, and persuasion on the other end. Another expert used, by the defense this time, was a forensic psychologist. His rebuttal was quite confusing to me, but what I think he said was that the definition of coercion was not reached in this case and he also went as far as saying that Colleen's treatment was like that of a military boot camp. In the end, Hooker was charged as guilty and the judge even went as far as to show his gratitude to the jury for not listening to the defense's expert witness. The end of the chapter really sums up the use of experts in a nice way, referring to them as "hired guns". It also opened my eyes to the fact that it really doesn't matter who is right when it comes to experts, but it matters who can have more of an influence on the jury. Aside from the chapter, the links were both really interesting. The first, being what different experts are paid hourly is a real eye opener. Upwards of like $50 an hour! That is where I feel like these "experts" will say whatever will help the defense or the prosecution out in order to get such a nice reward. The last link was so gross! It never occurred to me how many types of experts actually exist, including those who study decomposition only. I was very surprised at the information they can gain from studying a corpse and the bugs that are decomposing it.
Terms: Elizabeth Smart, brainwashing, coercion, Colleen Stan, prosecution, forensic specialist, persuasion, hired guns, experts, jury, defense
Chapter 7’s criminal case was very interesting, but at the same time it made me feel uneasy reading about the case. Colleen Stan was abducted by Cameron and Janice Hooker and was held in their home for many years. Hooker confined, chained, and tortured Stan while she was held captive, and eventually showed her a contract that he called “The Indenture”. Hooker said this was a form she needed to sign saying she agreed to be Hooker’s slave, and if she did not sign it, a group called The Company, would sell her into slavery. The form was fake and typed up by Janice, and the idea of The Company was totally false, yet Stan had no idea so she agreed. After being confined for years, Hooker let Stan visit her family, telling her she must not say anything about where she had been or what she had been through, or her family would be killed. Stan said nothing to her family and eventually went back to living with Hooker. Stan’s escape happened when Janice became increasingly afraid of Hooker as he talked about abducting another girl and having a group of slaves. She started to go to the local church and one day told her that the Company was fake, which in turn made Stan decide to leave. Something I found surprising was the fact that Stan still did not tell on Hooker, it was a family friend that turned him into the police.
During Hooker’s criminal case both the prosecution and the defense team called in expert witnesses to testify their ideas of the case. The prosecution called in a forensic psychologist who explained the idea of coercion and how he believed Stan was coerced into living with the secret life of Hooker and not telling anyone, even when she was home with her family. The defense team brought in a psychiatrist who explained he believed coercion was not used in the case, and that there were many times when Stan could have left. Hooker himself even testified and although he admitted to kidnapping Stan, he tried to make what he did seem less sadistic. In the end Hooker was sentenced to 100 years of prison, and although he tried to appeal his case, his appeal was shot down.
The thing I found most interesting in this case was the judge’s comments to the jury saying he was glad they did not listen to the defense’s expert testimony and that the expert was obviously siding with Hooker’s case because he was paid to do so. This was interesting to me because when one thinks of an expert testimony they do expect the expert to speak for whichever side they are hired by, when in reality they should be a mediator and have no bias towards any side. This brings up the link that I looked at. The link showed rates of pay for expert witnesses such as a psychologist who gets paid $100-$150 an hour for a case. In my opinion the fact that they are getting so much money shows that they would be more likely to side with the people who hired them just so they could be sure they got paid.
The video clips were absolutely disgusting and I know it is a job I would never get to do, but it gave a different light to “expert”. Instead of an expert witness, such as a psychologist, who does most of their work in an office, there are other experts out there who work hands on in crime scenes, and these people give just as good testimonies as the others.
Key Words: forensic psychologist, psychiatrist, expert witness, coercion, crime scene, appeal, prosecution, defense,
The chapter began with the Elizabeth smart case, which was a very odd case to a lot of people because of the way Smart acted at the time of her spotting and when people called out her name she wouldn’t react. The chapter then talks about a case a little more in depth. Colleen Stan was abducted while hitchhiking by Cameron and Janice Hooker. Cameron Hooker kidnapped her, bound her, put her head in a box and eventually took her back to their home. Over the next few months Hooker would subject hooker to alot of different tortures or rather in his opinion sexual fantasies involving bondage. He would tie her up, confine her in a box whip her, suffocate for a time among other things. After a few months of this going on he eventually let her out and hander her a contract called “This Indenture” Basically what this document was, was a contract for slavery. Why would anyone sign one of those though. Well Hooker threatened her family and herself that if she didn’t sign it dire consequences would happen. After having spent months getting tortured sexually and physically that threat would more than likely cause a lot of negative thoughts to occur. So she signed the contract. Over the next few years a few different things happened. She was allowed more and more freedoms as time went on eventually being allowed to go jogging unsupervised, and was even allowed a visit to her parent’s house. Another thing that occurred was the children of the hookers were growing up and noticing that they kept a lady chained up in the house. Also Janice Hooker was beginning to have second thoughts regarding the situation and even became more religious to the point she eventually told Stan that the organization that they used to coerce her was false and that nothing would happen to her family if she left. Eventually Hooker was brought to trial over the events that happened however a few different points were raised. Hooker said that because she signed a contract that she had agreed to the sexual acts that it wasn’t considered rape. Also because she had been allowed to see her family she obviously wasn’t in a “kidnapped” status. The main point of this chapter was to bring about the 2 experts that were given by both sides in this case. The 2 experts were both well qualified in the areas Coercion, kidnapping, and torture and both were very well known in other cases. Hatcher was the prosecuters expert witness, while Lunde was the Defenses expert witness. Hatcher was not allowed to give a direct opinion on the case itself involving hooker however, he was allowed to give his expertise on what would include coercion and if what hooker did(hypothetically) would constitute as coercion and torture even if she was consensual. He basically said that she wasn’t brainwashed as such, but because of threats and some other disorientation she agreed to the terms because she feared of the consequences of her actions if she refused. That was enough in hatchers opinion to count as coercion. Lunde countered this testimony stating the actual law around coercion stating that because he had threatened her family that it didn’t count as it didn’t happen to her a mere technicality to anyone else. One of the defining points behind Lundes testimony was that the judge (knight) pretty much had issues with a lot of what he said and even questioned him about his testimony, going so far as to omit certain parts of it. This would eventually lead to a lot of what Lunde said as being discredited and eventually Hooker was found guilty of 7 out of 8 charges. After the trial Judge Knight thanked the jury for being smart enough to see that Lunde was pretty much full of crap.
One of the biggest issues involving Expert Testimonies is that they get paid a fair amount of money to testify. Maybe some more than others but even the lowest $20 being an investigator or cop. The top being psychiatrist making upwards $200 an hour and I have heard of cases even more. The Yates case the Psychiatrist made $400 an hour. Suffice to the money is really good to become an expert in a case.
One of the bigger points regarding psychology and experts though revolve around what the jury will think from an expert. I would gesture to say that Experts have a HUGE part in swaying a jury and that a battle of experts is honestly which one can sway the jury better. Jurors who are probably not overly knowledgable in most expert areas(psychiatry, psychology, forensics, etc.) will rely on expert testimony greatly during deliberation. I recall during Mock Trial that almost every case would have expert witnesses and they were the funnest to question and cross examine because it was fun trying to trip them up into saying something wrong and discrediting them, which is a huge thing in most trials as well. IF you can get a expert witness to falsify information or make a slip up their entire testimony is shot down. That essentially happened in the case we read about when the judge started asking questions about the one expert. That would make a difference to the jury and cast doubt on that expert.
Experts can help cases a lot though by giving information that normal people wouldn’t be able to give. Most people cant give a diagnosis involving a patient either physiologically or psychologically. Most people cant tell you what weapon was used in a murder based on the blood spray. Most people wouldn’t willingly dive into bug research of a dead body because that frankly is disgusting. So having those experts can go along way to help a jury understand things that may be beyond their capabilities. However as mentioned above they also can be a hindrance if you have a battle of experts going on because if a jury member sees two psychologists both experts in an area arguing over certain points what are they going to believe. In the case of Dahmer their were around 6 psychologists and they were almost split on what their idea behind him was. If I was a jury member that wouldn’t help me at all in deciding a case if the experts themselves cant decide on something.
Needless to say I think Experts are a great part of Trials because psychologically they help everyone understand the case and the materials being presented a lot better. However you can get bad experts, or corrupt ones that are their for the money and can be a hindrance to a case. As a juror you have to decide if the expert you are witnessing is actually credible as a witness.
Witness, Judge, Psychologically, Physiologically, Psychiatrist, expert witness, Testimony, jury, juror, deliberation, torture, coercion, compliance, brainwashed.
The case of Colleen Stan raised a lot of questions. What kind of family could see their child who had been kidnapped a while ago not have any suspicions about where her daughter has been? In chapter 7 of Minds on Trial Colleen Stan was kidnapped by Cameron and Janice Hooker and was held captive in one of the worse possible ways a person could be put in. Colleen was locked up; put in a head box, only could use the restroom once a day under the supervision of Cameron Hooker etc. These are some pretty gruesome thoughts, how could someone do such a thing and think of these ideas? Many “experts” are called to trial in this case to give information that they are trained in that can either help or hurt Hooker. In the case of Colleen Stan, there were plenty of experts called to the stand to testify about whether or not Colleen was brainwashed by Cameron Hooker.
Experts are people who are trained in a certain field such as Psychology or it could be just someone who has a huge history of knowledge in that subject that could help a case proceed. Another example of people who could be considered as an expert would be a doctor. Doctors often testify in court proceedings to help the case and they also help let the jury understand what is happening. Like a Psychologist would do, they would give information in their area of knowledge to further the jury’s knowledge of the aspects of the case they are trying to look at; like if someone is insane, they would help the jury by giving reasons as to why the person being on trial might be insane.
In our book Minds on Trial it states on page 90 that experts are often referred to as “hired guns.” This name was given to experts because they often help or hurt the person on trial, they often advocate for one side of the party and not the other, the public really frowns upon them. Experts are a little on the expensive side for people who cannot afford one to appear at their trial, even though they can help so much with your side of the story when you hire them.
KEY TERMS: Experts, Jury, Brainwash, Hired Guns, Advocate, Psychologist/Psychology
After reading what happened to Stan I also began to question why she didn’t try to escape, and how did Hooker gain and maintain that much control over her. I can’t believe that the prosecution tried to claim that based on Stan’s actions during the trial she was not forced into every act Hooker committed. Stan had gone through a traumatic experience and she had to deal with the situation for a long time. At some point she thought she better listen and do what he says or something really bad may happen. Hooker slowly gained control over her every action; he basically made her believe that she is his slave. She signed a contract stating that she was basically his property. Everything he did impacted the way she viewed the situation she was in. I think she went along with everything because it eventually seemed “normal” or the way things are going to be no matter what. This was also impacted by the support from Hookers wife and child, when Stan saw them she probably thought this is what she was supposed to do because why would they allow Hooker to do this if it wasn’t.
During the trial it was interesting to see how experts were brought in to help the defense and prosecution. Basically a battle of the experts began to occur, one would state a point then the other side would counteract. I found this interesting because experts are supposed to be non-biased. They are supposed to provide information that may give insight into the case, not state why one side is better than the other. Each expert provided valid information to the case however they were choosing sides. Experts are individuals who know a lot about a topic in relation to a case. They are non-biased in that they provided valid information without picking sides. They can help cases by providing information that the defense or prosecution is not able to provide for the jury. The information can help the jury understand why something may have occurred in the case. For example Hatcher explained forms of coercion which impacted why Stan would not try to escape from Hooker. Overall experts are extremely helpful in cases as long as they are not biased in the information they provide to the jury. As if they seemed biased to a certain side it is possible that the jury will as well, because the “expert” knows everything.
Stan was basically broken down by Hooker, he brainwasher her, abused her, and coerced her in an effort to gain as much control as possible. I wonder how Hooker’s wife was able to go along with his actions yet not try to help Stan, shouldn’t she have been convicted for kidnapping as well. I think the mental illness aspects are apparent in this case, as Stan was broken down physically she was mentally as well.
I thought the bug video clips were extremely gross yet very interesting. This is an aspect of forensic science that we seem to forget. Bugs are important in cases because they can tell a story as to what happened to the body. Watching these clips made me thing about the power point slides we discussed in class. Overall this chapter was very interesting and so were the video clips. Experts are very helpful to cases as long as they tell the facts and focus on providing the most valid information possible.
Terms: Experts, mental illness, brainwashing, coercion, defense prosecution, jury, forensic science,
This chapter in MOT was pretty disturbing. It talked about Colleen Stan and her experience with the Hooker family, being kidnapped, tortured, and raped for over seven years. The main focus of the chapter though, was the impact of expert testimony during Cameron Hooker’s trial. Experts are people who have gained experience or education in a specific field. Going further, expert witnesses are experts who testify, educating jurors on their specialized knowledge and relating it to the trial. In the case of Colleen Stan, the prosecution’s expert witness, Dr. Chris Hatcher, was a forensic psychologist with a specialization in terrorism, hostage negotiation, brainwashing, and coercion. The goal of expert witnesses like Hatcher should not be to give a biased opinion, but to merely share their knowledge of the field with jurors. As a forensic psychologist, he informed the jurors on the signs and symptoms of brainwashing and discussed why Stan behaved the way she had while being held captive all those years. Expert testimonies like this help a case dramatically, because jurors are given more scientific information to consider when deliberating a verdict. In Stan’s case, I believe Hatcher’s testimony impacted it a lot, because his discussion on forms of coercion and sadism helped to inform and educate the jury.
When most people think of expert testimony, they assume it’s a psychologist or psychiatrist discussing competency to stand trial or profiling. However, people don’t realize the large amount of different fields and experts used in criminal cases. Looking over the PDF you provided us with, I found it interesting to see the different types of experts and their rates. I never knew DNA testing was such an expensive expertise to consult. It would be interesting to learn how many experts and how much money was spent in more severe trials, such as Dahmer and Yates. In Dahmer’s case, I’m sure psychologists and psychiatrists were brought in to testify, and there may have been even more experts due to the way he preserved his victims, skinned them, ate them, etc.
Going further, the Forensic Entomology video you had us watch was very interesting. This just showed that experts really can make or break a case. This is especially true in entomology, because determining the time of death in a murder trial is very important. Using bugs and their larvae, experts can measure, quite precisely, when the victim died, thus giving detectives a time to use when checking out a suspect’s alibi. This is also relevant when determining if a body was moved, because some insects may only be located in a specific area. If found in a body in a location where they are not prevalent, experts know this body may have been moved.
Lastly, I looked over the glossary in the book and found some other lesser-known experts and expert witnesses. In behavioral investigative advice (BIA), social scientists are used to consult with detectives on how to use the media. Profilers are also used; some may even be specialized in race, geography, etc. There are tons of different experts than can be used in investigation and trial.
Key Terms: Expert, Expert Witness, Competency to Stand Trial (CST), Criminal Profiling, Racial Profiling, Geographic Profiling, Forensic Psychologist, Coercion, Brainwashing, Forensic Entomology, Time of Death
Chapter seven in "Minds On Trial" explains expert testimonies and how they impact court cases. There are clearly two sides representing and argument on who is right and who is wrong. It is sometimes hard to identify who is really telling the truth. Experts either tend to weaken of strengthen a side of the case depending on their credibility as an expert.
This is evident in a case the chapter goes into great detail about a case from the 1980's. The case of Colleen Stan, who was held in captivity for nearly a decade as a battered sex slave by Cameron Hooker. Dr. Hatcher is a forensic psychologist, whose expertise were in brainwashing (coercion) and terrorism, worked on her case. During Colleen's time held captive she was allowed to visit her parents but could not give details as to why she suddenly disappeared for four years due to the threats Hooker gave that if she told anyone about her situation the people she told would be killed. Dr. Hatcher was put on the stand to explain why Colleen didn't try to escape when she clearly had several opportunities over the years to do so. Hatcher claims she was overpowered by Hooker, or 'brainwashed' so to speak. In my opinion I believe she has so much anxiety and was just afraind of what worse could happen to her or her family if she told of what Hooker was doing to her. It was questionable that was she a willing victim of not?
The role of an expert in a court case is important to credibility and anexpert gives a psychological view to both sides of the case. Dr. Lunde, worked on the case but was defending hooker, more like defending the behavior of Hooker. The judge in the case automatically felt that Lunde's statements were inaccurate and that he should be overlooked by the jury.
The video link on entomology was very intriguing to me and connects with the key role of experts rather well. Experts do come from every field but some a more rare like forensic toxicologists, decomposition, and serologist. They get down and dirty and look at the more grotesque evidence from a crime. I find the role of an entomologist very interesting, I mean who knew that examining different kinds of maggots could help solve a crime. This reminds of one of my favorite televison shows "Bones". In each episode Dr. Temperance Brennan examines dead, smelly, decaying bodies to determine the crime and if the victim was murdered or not. There is even an entomologist on the show, Dr. Jack Hodgens. He is always so exuberant about finding any maggots or other insects on the dead bodies. You really must need a strong stomach to be able to handle doing dirty work like that everyday.
The overall purpose of an expert testimony is to provide judges and jurors with technical or specialized knowledge that will help with the process of making legal decisions. The expert has to be able to explain the complexityof a dead body or defend a victim who may have been 'brainwashed''. They also need a vast amount of knowledge to make their argument a very strong and credible one, unlike Dr. Lunde who was interupted and quieted by the judge residing in the case and was called a menace to the criminal justice system, now that is a really low blow, so the expert really needs to know what they are talking about in order for the court to understand who is right and who is wrong. Experts are judged by the public as "hired guns" advocates for the side that hired them or as irrelevant or unnecessary to the administration of justice. An expert just needs to have a thorough understanding of the workings of a courtroom to make their standing point strong and credible.
Key terms: forensic psychologist, brainwash, coercion, expert, hired gun, entomologist, forensic toxicologist.
The story in chapter seven went from telling the story of Elizabeth Smart, who was abducted from her Utah home on June 5th 2002 and was found nine months later alive. The whole situation was puzzling to enforcement because her captors had moved her around the country and even took her out in public. After telling this story the chapter went on to a story about Stan and how the Hookers had kidnapped her and held her hostage for ever seven years. Using her basically as a sex slave. Mr. Hooker would put her into a box, restrain her, use bondage, etc. She said that she never even saw his face for about a year because she always had a facial box over her head which restricted her from seeing and hearing.
Stan escaped, much to Mrs. Hooker. She had told the police what had happened and they went to court. While at court they were having troubles finding out what to charge Mr. Hooker with because his attorney argued that even though Hooker may have kidnapped Stan, the sexual acts were consensual and should not have been considered criminal. They did not know what to think of this information and needed more advice so they brought in an expert who was a forensic psychologist, Dr. Chris Hatcher. He was an expert in terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion. Hatcher was supposed to provide valuable insights into why Stand behaved as she did both during and after her seven-year enslavement. He stated that she had been coerced into this because of the facts such as kidnapping, hanging, whipping, confinement to a box, and sensory and food deprivation. These tie into our sensory and perception psychology. This was an extreme form of coercion used by sadistic individuals to control another person. Dr. Hatcher broke down the forms of coercion into their effects on a person, stating this, “Eliminating daylight through sensory deprivation would disorient a person. Controlling food, excertion, and other bodily functions would destroy a person’s sense of privacy. A continued pattern of physical and sexual abuse would create the belief that life had been permanently changed. Isolating the person from contract with all other people would reinforce the belief that the captor is the sole source of information and creates dependency on that person.”
The defense countered Hatches testimony with Dr. Donald Lunde. His testimony about the legal definition of coercion was apparently intended to suggest that because Hooker threated Colleens family, he had not coerced her into withholding from her family the fact that she had been kidnapped and enslaved by someone.
An expert witness is believed to have expertise and specialized knowledge, training, or experience in a particular subject beyond that of an average person. As we could tell by reading this chapter that there were many experts called to the stand and tell their side of the story and give their explanations of it.
There are a wide variety of experts, not all experts work on the legal side of things. There are many people who are good at things and may be considered an expert. For instance, the video that we watched on Dirty Jobs, dealt with maggots and bugs. Experts come in a wide variety of shapes and sizes!
Legal Terms, Psychology, Expert Witness, Sensory Psychology, Perception Psychology, Coercion
Chapter 7 begins by introducing the story of Elizabeth Smart and what her captors did to her while she was in captivity. The chapter begins with this reference because it was baffling to people after she was returned safely to her family as to why the 15-year-old Elizabeth was unable or chose to not try and escape during the instances when her kidnappers brought her into public where she could be seen and where she could see others people as well. People would automatically assume that she should have tried to run or started yelling, but a lot of times there is more to the story than that. This is when the case of Colleen Stan is introduced to help explain the abduction, mind control, and coercion that went on in Stan’s case as well as Elizabeth Smart’s case.
The chapter goes into great detail about how Colleen Stan ended up in a blue van with the Hooker’s and how they eventually got her back to their house where she would be held for a total of 7 years. It was interesting because the kidnapping and holding of Stan began as any other kidnapping would be thought to go: she was held in the basement and was only allowed food and urination/defecation privileges once a day. She was held in very tight quarters (the head box and the coffin under the bed) for most of her time under Hooker’s control. But after she was presented and intimidated with the contract she had to sign saying she would be given to a ring of sex slaves if she didn’t stay with Hooker, the circumstances of the kidnapping changed. This contract was enough to scare Stan into thinking she had two options: stay with Hooker or be given into a sex ring. Both would seem absolutely horrible, but Stan probably knew that she already had experienced a lot with Hooker and would probably be able to handle anything else he threw at her and if she was never going to be able to go home again, that staying with him was the better of the two options. After a while, Stan was allowed to actually go into public jogs after asking for permission and she was even able to visit her family. Hooker simply had to tell her to not tell anyone about what was going on and she would listen, all because of the “contract” she signed that didn’t even really mean anything to anyone but Hooker. The circumstances of the contract were all a lie, and once Stan was aware of this, she simply left. This is the part that surprised me the most. She was able to leave so easily and it seems as if she could have been doing this for years before that. It is, however, very hard to say what it must have been like for her while she was under Hooker’s control. It was a situation of very serious mind games that Hooker was playing and these mind games were definitely strong enough to get Stan to stay when she had the opportunities to leave.
The trial of Cameron Hooker that ensued after the ordeal with Stan unraveled is a great example of one requiring expert testimony. There may have been expert witnesses brought into this trial, but was everything they testified about credible? The Hooker case shows that when looking at the many things a judge has to make judgments about, the credibility of any expert witnesses is definitely among them. Just because you are considered an expert witness in a trial doesn’t mean that what you are saying is accurate or even relevant to what is happening specifically in a trial.
Experts can be defined as people brought into a trial as witnesses who have specified knowledge about something in regards to the trial that they can elaborate on and give more detail about for the court. There are a lot of instances in trials where there are grey areas that your average person would be unable to discuss and make clear for the jury or judge. This is when an expert would be called as a witness. There are many different kinds of experts and depending on what they are doing for the defense or prosecution; they will be charged a certain amount of money for their time given to the case. This is something that raises a red flag in my mind simply because they are testifying after being paid money to do so. This just makes me think that their testimonies may not always be fully truthful and may be geared more towards what the attorneys want them to say that will help their client in the best possible way. This may not always be the case, but it undoubtedly happens. Experts can help a case simply because they are there to provide the very important details that may help clear up any questions a jury or judge may have about things like blood spatter evidence or entomology. You are unable to tell the significance of these things unless you have specific training in that area. Without experts, too many things would be left unclear and confusing and the outcome of a trial could and probably would be much different than with an expert testimony.
Terms: expert witness, expert testimony, coercion, mind control, entomology, blood spatter, defense, prosecution
Chapter 7 in Minds on Trial tells the story of how Colleen Stan was abducted by Cameron Hooker and kept as his slave. Stan was picked up by Cameron Hooker and his wife while she was hitchhiking. This led to Hooker confronting Stan at knifepoint and taking her hostage. Hooker took Stan back to his house and kept her in the basement, where she was put into a box just big enough for her and was kept chained up most of the time. Hooker later presented Stan with a contract outlining her servitude as Hooker’s slave. This continued many years until Stan was able to escape one day, back to her family and away from Hooker’s sadistic intentions. Later, a family friend of the Hookers contacted the police and informed them of what had been happening. This led to Cameron Hooker being arrested and charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment, and multiple sex offenses. During the trial, a forensic psychologist named Chris Hatcher interviewed Colleen Stan. He concluded that Stan had been brainwashed by Hooker and that was the explanation for her apparent apathy of the situation. Hooker’s attorney countered with their own expert witness, Dr. Lunde, also a forensic psychologist, who claimed that Hooker’s methods didn’t qualify as coercion. This was shot down by the judge as being prejudicial and incorrect. The trial eventually ended with Hooker being convicted and sent to prison. Colleen Stan apparently experienced extreme anxiety and fear after the trial was over but recovered over time and leads a fairly normal life today.
Expert witnesses are generally individuals with expertise in an area involved in the trial. This can be very circumstantial, or it can be more general like in the chapter of Minds on Trial, calling on the expertise of a trained psychologist or doctor. Expert witnesses provide their testimony using their area of expertise. It is hoped that the expert is unbiased in their claims and interpretations, but attorneys can select experts with certain opinions in order to influence this and experts are also paid for their service, which can bias their opinion. Expert witnesses can play a very important role in trials; they typically carry a lot of weight with their testimony due to the fact that juries view their interpretations as being more credible due to their “expert” status. This can obviously work for both the prosecution and the defense, as shown in the Minds on Trial chapter. Both parties brought in expert witnesses in order to help their case. It was also interesting to see the judge in the Hooker trial reject the testimony of Dr. Lunde due to the fact that the judge determined that he wasn’t accurate in his claim of the definition of coercion.
It was interesting to see the chart that outlined the guidelines for hourly rates and other guidelines of expert witnesses. It was also interesting watching the Dirty Jobs clips involving the forensic entomology team, what they do, and thinking of how it could be used for expert testimony in a trial. This was fairly disgusting too though.
Terms: brainwashing, forensic psychologist, coercion, expert witness/testimony
This chapter was a difficult one to read. It described the kidnapping case of Colleen Stan, where she was imprisoned as a sex slave for seven years. The kidnapper, Cameron Hooker, physically, sexually, and psychologically abused her to horrific extents. He placed her in several restraints, such as a head box that kept light and sound out and was extremely hot, and a coffin like box that was barely big enough for her to fit in. For most of the first year she was kept naked with no vision, privacy, or ability to move. He would often hang her from rafters while whipping, burning, shocking, and raping her. This story really gets strange when we find out that Hooker’s wife was very much a part of the entire thing. She was present during the kidnapping, aware of all that Hooker was doing to her, never trying to stop him or tell anyone about the unspeakable acts that her husband was committing right in front of her. But the most baffling part of the story was Colleen’s submissive and cooperative manner during her entire imprisonment. Over time, Hooker allowed Colleen more freedom, yet she continued to ask him for permission for things such as eating or using the bathroom. She eventually was allowed to go jogging by herself, yet she did not capitalize on the opportunity to escape. After four years, Hooker allowed her to visit her family unsupervised. Still, she did not reveal any information about her horrific imprisonment, attempt to get help, or attempt to hide from Hooker when he returned. Even when she finally did leave seven years later, she called him to tell him that she was leaving. It is evident that Hooker held a controlling power over Colleen, what some would call coercion.
Both the defense and prosecution used expert witnesses. Expert witnesses provide judges and jurors with technical or specialized knowledge that will help in the process of making legal decisions. Some would never consider expert witnesses to be very helpful when trying to understand complicated issues. Others see them as advocates for whichever side hired them, and feel that they only try to sway the jurors to the side they are on. The link provided average salaries for expert witnesses, and it’s hard to ignore these high salaries and how they might play a part in an expert witness’s testimony. Chapter seven in Minds on Trial reminds us that we must take into account the expert witness’s credibility.
The prosecution used a forensic psychologist (who probably made around $100-$150/hour for this trial) who was an expert on coercion. He had extensively interviewed Colleen, and used specific definitions of brainwashing and coercion as part of his testimony. He explained that Hooker’s controlling, dominating, isolating, and abusive methods led Colleen to act compliant during her years of imprisonment. The defense used a forensic psychiatrist (who probably made around $125-200/hour) who had experience in captivity and coercion. This expert witness gave a different definition of coercion, focusing on threatening with death, and explained that Hooker never did this. He minimized Hooker’s actions in more ways such as related them to drills used by the Marine Corps. He also argued that because Hooker did not have continuous physical control over Colleen, he could not have had coercive persuasion over her. The judge seemed to know better, as he critically questioned this expert witness and told the jury to disregard his narrow definition of coercion. After the jury had given the verdict (over 100 years of prison term), the judge addressed the jury and commended them on their decision. Hooker tried to argue that this showed that the judge was not impartial, but this failed to have any impact because the judge had spoken the jury in this way after the verdict was given.
Expert witnesses are meant to be helpful the judge’s and juror’s decision of the verdict. However, we must not be quick to believe everything we hear from them. As they appear authoritarian, this probably happens very often. It is difficult to disregard what an authority figure tells us. This shows the importance of judges. In this case, the judge made a good decision in questioning the defense expert witness to help the jurors clarify what is correct and incorrect.
Lastly, the bug videos were disgusting. I don’t understand what would make anyone interested in that type of work, but I commend them for doing it because it’s obviously important in some cases!
Terms: defense, prosecution, expert witness, judge, jury, coercion, forensic psychologist, forensic psychiatrist
This chapter was a difficult one to read. It described the kidnapping case of Colleen Stan, where she was imprisoned as a sex slave for seven years. The kidnapper, Cameron Hooker, physically, sexually, and psychologically abused her to horrific extents. He placed her in several restraints, such as a head box that kept light and sound out and was extremely hot, and a coffin like box that was barely big enough for her to fit in. For most of the first year she was kept naked with no vision, privacy, or ability to move. He would often hang her from rafters while whipping, burning, shocking, and raping her. This story really gets strange when we find out that Hooker’s wife was very much a part of the entire thing. She was present during the kidnapping, aware of all that Hooker was doing to her, never trying to stop him or tell anyone about the unspeakable acts that her husband was committing right in front of her. But the most baffling part of the story was Colleen’s submissive and cooperative manner during her entire imprisonment. Over time, Hooker allowed Colleen more freedom, yet she continued to ask him for permission for things such as eating or using the bathroom. She eventually was allowed to go jogging by herself, yet she did not capitalize on the opportunity to escape. After four years, Hooker allowed her to visit her family unsupervised. Still, she did not reveal any information about her horrific imprisonment, attempt to get help, or attempt to hide from Hooker when he returned. Even when she finally did leave seven years later, she called him to tell him that she was leaving. It is evident that Hooker held a controlling power over Colleen, what some would call coercion.
Both the defense and prosecution used expert witnesses. Expert witnesses provide judges and jurors with technical or specialized knowledge that will help in the process of making legal decisions. Some would never consider expert witnesses to be very helpful when trying to understand complicated issues. Others see them as advocates for whichever side hired them, and feel that they only try to sway the jurors to the side they are on. The link provided average salaries for expert witnesses, and it’s hard to ignore these high salaries and how they might play a part in an expert witness’s testimony. Chapter seven in Minds on Trial reminds us that we must take into account the expert witness’s credibility.
The prosecution used a forensic psychologist (who probably made around $100-$150/hour for this trial) who was an expert on coercion. He had extensively interviewed Colleen, and used specific definitions of brainwashing and coercion as part of his testimony. He explained that Hooker’s controlling, dominating, isolating, and abusive methods led Colleen to act compliant during her years of imprisonment. The defense used a forensic psychiatrist (who probably made around $125-200/hour) who had experience in captivity and coercion. This expert witness gave a different definition of coercion, focusing on threatening with death, and explained that Hooker never did this. He minimized Hooker’s actions in more ways such as related them to drills used by the Marine Corps. He also argued that because Hooker did not have continuous physical control over Colleen, he could not have had coercive persuasion over her. The judge seemed to know better, as he critically questioned this expert witness and told the jury to disregard his narrow definition of coercion. After the jury had given the verdict (over 100 years of prison term), the judge addressed the jury and commended them on their decision. Hooker tried to argue that this showed that the judge was not impartial, but this failed to have any impact because the judge had spoken the jury in this way after the verdict was given.
Expert witnesses are meant to be helpful the judge’s and juror’s decision of the verdict. However, we must not be quick to believe everything we hear from them. As they appear authoritarian, this probably happens very often. It is difficult to disregard what an authority figure tells us. This shows the importance of judges. In this case, the judge made a good decision in questioning the defense expert witness to help the jurors clarify what is correct and incorrect.
Lastly, the bug videos were disgusting. I don’t understand what would make anyone interested in that type of work, but I commend them for doing it because it’s obviously important in some cases!
Terms: defense, prosecution, expert witness, judge, jury, coercion, forensic psychologist, forensic psychiatrist
Chapter 7 of the Minds on Trial was a very interesting read. The chapter begin with an introduction into the case of Elizabeth Smart, who was abducted on June 5th, 2002. She was found nine months later and her captors had moved her around the country and even out in public. I remember seeing this story on the news and thinking that girl must have been brainwashed or something done to her psychologically.
The chapter then went on to discuss Colleen Stan, who had been kidnapped, raped, tortured, and held hostage for over seven years by the Hooker family. The main focus of this chapter was the use of experts and expert testimony in the trial of Cameron Hooker. Experts are people who have gained experience or education in a specific field. Their purpose is to act as an expert witness and give an unbiased opinion, testifying to educate jurors on their area of expertise. However, it is important to remember that these expert witnesses are paid by either the defense or prosecution, so their testimonies are not always unbiased.
In the trial of Cameron Hooker, the prosecution's expert witness was a forensic psychologist named Dr. Chris Hatcher. Dr. Hatcher was an expert in terrorism, hostage negotiation, brainwashing, and coercion. He educated the jury on brainwashing, forms of coercion, and sadism, helping to explain why Stan acted the way she did. On the other hand, the defense's expert witness, another forensic psychologist, gave a different definition of coercion, in which the judge told the jury to ignore the information he just gave them. The judge also reminded the the jury that the experts are paid by their respect sides. I thought this was pretty cool because the defense's expert was obviously being biased in his knowledge he was sharing with the jury and the judge called him on it.
I found the page about expert's costs to be very interesting. I did not know that they made that much money or that DNA testing was that expensive, costing between 800 and 1500 dollars per sample. Some of the highest paid experts were accident reconstructionists, which sounds like a cool job, psychiatrists, physicians, pathologists, and surprisingly social workers.
The video clips from Dirty Jobs with Mike Rowe doing some forensic entomology were pretty funny too. He had to catch flies, grab maggots, and find beetles around the decomposing body. I found it interesting that they take the temperature of the maggots because the maggots are hotter than the environment when feeding.
Terms: Expert Testimony, Expert, Expert Witness, Prosecution, Defense, Judge, Jury, Coercion, Brainwashing, Forensic Psychology, DNA Testing, Forensic Entomology
The story in Minds on Trial was one that shocked me and was surprising in many ways. The things that this woman had to endure for so many years were so sad. While I was reading this chapter I put myself in the minds of not only the victim but the offender as well, which I’m sure the experts had to do as well. From the beginning of the story Stan had a feeling that things weren’t right, but still decided to go along with them. This kind of reminded me of what happened in Silence of the Lambs when the women saw a man needing help but still felt uneasy about the situation. Same thing happened here the couple seemed safe because the woman had a baby and seemed kind at the same time. I found it had to believe a woman could go along with what her husband was doing and even help with sexual abuse of Stan. Most likely she was forced to go along with this to protect herself and her child.
Both the defense and prosecution had experts come in and examine the victim and try to explain why she went along with all this for so long. Torturing anybody for that amount of time changes their world completely because they know nothing else but the world the person in control creates. When a person’s only contact is with a person who does nothing but torture then a person can lose touch with reality. Dr. Chris Hatcher does a great job of explaining how a person like Stan can go along with every command for so long, without trying to escape. The trauma the Stan went through changed her world and her way of thinking. The way Hooker cut her off from everything he coercers her into not trying to escape. Hatcher’s testimony was easy to understand a d help the jury understand why Stan went along with everything. The defense went in a different direction with Dr. Donald Lunde and his definition of coercion. His breakdown of coercion a definition that I had a hard time believing, because it shouldn’t matter who get threatened, but the effect of the treat on the person. With the judge interrupted the testimony and chose to question Lunde himself about the definition of coercion. One thing that I believe should never be considered during a trial was brought up by the judge. He pointed to the jury that the “experts” were paid for the testimony and make some comments after the trail that shouldn’t have been said. It shouldn’t matter whether the experts are paid or not, they are being called to trail to help juries understand certain things in the case. There are many experts out there and they don’t all agree on the same thing, so each has their own opinion of certain situations. Sometime in my life I will be called to be in a jury and I like to know both side of the story. Having experts from both the defense and prosecution gives juries’ different views in the case. Juries cannot be expected to understand the physical evidence and the possible the psychological part of trials. Experts are needed to show how everything comes together and they earning the money they are paid.
Key Words: testimony, experts, coercion, jury.
I found it interesting how coercion can have such a drastic effect on a person's psyche that they visit their family after a four year absence and are unable to tell of their whereabouts. Cameron Hooker's tactics to essentially brainwash Colleen Stan were repulsive but at the same time incredibly well thought out and ingenious. Digging deeper into the psychological tactics used by Hooker shows a general reliance from Colleen Stan on behalf of Cameron Hooker. First she was forced into a "head box" which totally blocked her view of the outside and made her lose track of any sort of daylight. The prosecuting attorney claimed that withholding an extended amount of sunlight from a person can have horrible effects on their mood and personality, almost identical to seasonal-affective disorder. In addition, Stan developed a sense of reliance with her torturer. It is amazing to think that you have to depend on someone who continually beats you while suspending your body from chains, but while Hooker did torture this woman, he was also the sole source of food and let her use the restroom. Also this invades Colleen's sense of privacy which over time did have negative effects on her well-being. Lastly, the constant torturing and sexual acts forced onto Stan for over four years definitely would change a person's psyche and every day Colleen experienced these acts must have diminished her hope of every being set free.
One of the most head-scratching aspects of this case was how much freedom Hooker granted Colleen over the course of four years. During this time she was allowed to jog occasionally after asking for permission. Never once did she think of not coming back to the Hooker household or seeking out a neighbor and using their phone to alert the police. To understand how much control Colleen Stan felt Hooker had over here it is important to note that he tricked her into signing a document claiming that an overseeing organization would kill her if she did not live a life of servitude. This contract becomes all that more apparent when Colleen is dropped off at her parent's house for the holidays and then picked up by Hooker two days later. Never once in that two days did the parent's show any sort of concern over who this mysterious man was dropping their daughter off at their house after a four year absence. One wonders how much her parent's tried to get her to stay and not return to where ever they thought she was.
The two links I watched detailed different experts in their fields that can be asked to give insight on a case. They are paid according to how hard their job is and the type of case being examined. I noticed that a translator does not pay as well as an accident reconstructurist (who makes upwards of 1500 a case). I'm guessing this has to do with the fact that translators are plentiful in the world as opposed to other experts in their field. The prosecuting attorney in the Hooker case called to question the hire of the defense attorney's alleged expert on the case. Even thanking the judge for not allowing them to be fooled by the hiring. Mike Rowe's appearance on his show Dirty Jobs helped shed some light on a job of a forensic entomologist who examine different insects that feed on decomposing bodies.
terms: prosecution, defense, forensic entomologist, accident reconstructurist, coercion, seasonal-affective disorder
When reading chapter seven in the Minds on Trial book, the chapter opened with the detail of an abduction that had recently happened in 2002. A fifteen year old girl, Elizabeth Smart, was taken from her home and was found alive nine months later. After she was safely retuned, people started questioning the details of her kidnapping. It seemed that the kidnappers moved her around the country and also took her out in public. People started to wonder how that could be possible, if this girl was out in public how could see not seek help when it was so close to her. While reading I thought of the same thing, how could this girl not tell someone that she was kidnapped, if she was out in public why didn’t she run away, why was she so compliant with her kidnappers? The chapter then moves on and talks about a relevant case that happened in 1977. A woman name Colleen Stan was headed out to California and decided to hitchhike her way there. She got rides for different people, but she also turned down people who seemed to be not safe. A couple, Cameron and Janice Hooker, pulled over and decided to give the young woman a ride, Stan thought to herself that they seemed harmless, a married couple with a baby. It turns out that the couple ended up kidnapping her. Cameron Hooker had a lot more to do with the kidnapping than his wife; she just went along with her husband’s plan. Hooker took Stan to his house where he threw her in the basement and kept her in a coffin like box. She stayed in there for six months, they only time she got out was once a day to eat and use the bathroom. After the six months was up, Hooker handed Stan a contract that referred her as a slave. The contract hinted that Hooker was to have complete domination over Stan. It referred to Stan as a slave and Hooker as the master. For the next several years Stan lived under the complete sadistic control. She had more freedom because Hooker knew she was not going to run. She was able to go out for a run with permission and she even got to visit her family for two days. After Hooker’s wife began to get doubts she decided to talk Stan into leaving and that’s exactly what happened. The second half of the chapter talks about the case. Hooter was arrested and charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment, and multiple sex offenses. The controversy of the case was how people were puzzled by Stan, once had freedom, she stayed with the Hookers. Hooker’s attorney argued Hooker may have kidnapped Stan, but because she did not run, the sexual acts should be considered consensual. During the trail, two experts were called to testify, Dr. Chris Hatcher for the prosecution, and Dr. Donald Lunde for the defense. Experts are people who are called in to testify against or on the behalf of the person on trial. Experts are people who are professionals in a specific field. For example, Dr. Hatcher was called to testify against the suspect and was an expert in terrorism, hostage negotiation, brainwashing, and coercion. Dr. Lunde was there to testify on behalf of the defense and was a forensic psychiatrist who had cases involving human captivity and coercion. Certain experts are called to testify based on the matter of the case. The purpose of an expert is to help the prosecution or defense with their argument. When testifying they talk about the expert opinion based on their previous studies, or experiences in a certain field, which is meant to explain, or show relevance in a case during trial. So I believe experts are professionals in a certain field of work who have emphasis on a certain matter.
Terms: Abduction, Kidnap, Case, Prosecution, Defense, Suspect, Expert, Forensic, Testimony, Trial, False imprisonment
This chapter of Minds on Trial was very interesting to me. I just think it is amazing how brainwashing can affect someone like it did to a girl named Colleen Stan. Colleen Stan was a hitchhiker who had been on her way to her friends home and caught a ride with a man named Cameron Hooker and his wife and child. She did not suspect much until she got into the car and saw a box, which she would later be put into. Hooker then takes her to a cave and kidnaps her with a knife. Cameron Hooker did everything you would think a sadistic person would do to someone they had kidnapped. He raped her, tortured her with whips and suffocation, starved her, kept only her head inside a wooden box for most of the time she was kidnapped. She was naked most of the time and he had his way with her anyway and anytime he wanted. She then was told that she could either be his slave or be taken to a place called "The Company", which was supposedly a slave trading underground company where they traded women slaves. She decided to stay with Hooker not knowing that what he was saying was false. For the next couple years, Stan became Hooker's sex, cleaning, anything he wanted slave and his wife started to become jealous that Hooker and Stan were actually having consensual sex. Hooker then allowed Stan to visit her family and told her that if she told them about what had happened, he would kill the people in her family. so after four years of not knowing where she was, Stan came home and never mentioned what had happened and went back to being Hookers slave. Three years after that, Hooker's wife told Stan that what Hooker has told her was a lie and she escaped and Hooker was taken to court.
The chapter started off by talking about how Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped for so long and taken into the public. When people yelled her name, she did not respond because she had been brainwashed. What Hooker did was disorient Stan by keeping her in the box with no sunlight or freedom. Her privacy was gone and her identity. In court there was a Dr. Lunde who was supposed to be and "expert witness" who gave testimony about how what Hooker did was kind of what Military does in boot camp. Judge Knight, the judge of the trial, objected about the statements that Lunde had said and questioned him. Judge Knight did not feel that what Lunde had said was correct nor relevant. Judge Knight seemed like the expert of the trial because he understood the situation and let the jurors know. The "Experts" are the witnesses, the judge, and sometimes the jurors. They are supposed to be able to look at the case and understand what the situation is and understand what is right from wrong and what is valid and not valid. When expert witnesses come up, they are more than likely forensic psychologist or someone who has knowledge of the things that are going on in the case. They are supposed to make the case more clear to the jury so they are able to make the right choice on rather to convict someone on trial or not.
key terms: witness, experts, expert witnesses, testimony, brainwashing, forensic psychology, judge, jury
This chapter was interesting and kept my attention throughout the whole chapter. I had always wondered about how expert testimonies. I was curious as to whether the experts just point out important details that are also associated with the specific case, or if they just try to present information that promotes the jury to see the case from a certain sides view. This chapter had an example of how an expert is a paid advocate for the side paying them.
The chapter spent most of its time talking about the case of Colleen Stan. She was kidnapped while hitchhiking to her friends house in California. One of the people she received a ride from turned out to be a man with a lot of mental problems. Cameron Hooker and his wife played a role in the kidnapping of Stan. His wife however was said to had only allowed the kidnapping to avoid her husbands behaviors on her. While Stan was under the control of Hooker, she was placed into a head box, whipped, hung, nude, and he controlled all of her daily bodily functions such as going to the bathroom.
I was surprised to read about how after four years Hooker let Stan return home for two days, but he had so much control over her that she did not tell her family of what she had endured over the years. This showed the coercion that had taken place from the brainwashing from Hooker.
Janice Hooker, when her husband began talking about kidnapping another girl, became increasingly upset, and eventually freed Stan. I am glad that this finally happened. It is sad that it took so long, but it is good that she was able to leave without being killed like so many other kidnappings.
When the case of Cameron Hooker reached trial he was being facing 8 counts. He would eventually be found guilty on 7 of the 8 counts. Both the prosecution and defense had expert witnesses. Lund was the expert for the prosecution and presented some interesting information. He presented that Stan was not coerced because her life was not threatened. The judge ordered the jury to disregard some of Lund's testimony because he believed it was false.
The prosecution's expert witness presented information which the details of his testimony regarded mostly all of the things that Stan had gone through while being captive. He also stated that the majority of people would have been coerced or brainwashed from the traumatic experiences and acts of control Hooker showed over Stan.
The prices for different expert witnesses was interesting. I did not realize how expensive some experts were, and how inexpensive others were. I never knew how much experts cost for court cases, I just assumed they would be a little cheaper because they are important for the case and because lawyers cost so much.
Seeing Mike Rowe learning about forensic entomology was also pretty interesting. One thing he did was he captured flies for evidence by using a net and placing them into a tube. The next thing he did was collect maggots from the dead pig. I thought the sound the maggots made while eating the dead pig was really disgusting. He also collected some beetles that would have some evidence. I learned that when the maggots are still feeding off the body it is active, and when the maggots begin leaving the body it is known as advanced.
Terms: expert testimony, brainwashing, coercion, expert witness, prosecution, defense, forensic entomology.
Chapter 7 of Minds On Trial is about the incident in which the Hooker family abducted Colleen Stan. She left Eugene, Oregon in hopes of hitchhiking to Westwood, California to visit one of her friends. Cameron and Janice Hooker gave Stan a ride until they needed to stop for gas. Stan went in to use the restroom and had a bad gut feeling about riding with the Hooker couple. She put her feelings aside and decided to ride with them anyways. They turned the car down a dirt rode and parked somewhere isolated, and then Cameron Hooker threatened Stan with a knife. She was placed in a “head box” so she couldn’t hear or see where they were going. For the next five months she was kept naked, bound, blindfolded and gagged in Hooker’s basement. Hooker kept Stan in a coffin like box, in which she was chained to a rack. The box gave her little room to move, and most of the time her head was kept in the “head box”. Hooker liked to dominate Stan by whipping her, constricting her breathing, shocking her with electrical cords and burning her pubic area with a heat lamp. He also liked to drown her to the point she was unable to breathe. Hooker made a document called “This Indenture”, in which Stan was told about an organization that took women captive and sold them for profit. The document let Stan know that if she told anyone about what was going on, “The Company” would kill anyone she told. She was basically being brainwashed into being a slave for Hooker, and she must obey all of his commands. For the next several years, Stan lived under the control of Hooker. The longer she stayed, the more freedom to do things such as jogging without unsupervised. Hooker then let Stan visit her family but reminded her that if she said anything, “The Company” would find them and kill them. Her family was so surprised when she arrived because she had been missing for the past couple of years. She only visited for two days, and then Hooker called and told her he was coming to get her. She continued being under Hooker’s control for the next three years. Cameron’s wife started to become more disturbed when he wanted to abduct another woman. Eventually, Janice told Colleen about how the document was false and made up. Stan immediately left and Cameron Hooker was arrested and charged with kidnapping, false imprisonment, and multiple sex offenses.
One of the most important parts of the chapter is when they go to court. A large issue raised by Cameron Hooker’s defense was that Colleen was very compliant with his demands over the several years. It also didn’t help Colleens case in the fact that she showed almost no emotions when testifying. This case also showed some of the negative consequences of having an expert testimony. The purpose of expert testimonies is to provide judges and jurors with specialized knowledge that will help in the process of making legal decisions. The public sometimes judges expert witnesses as “hired guns”, which also means that they are advocated for the side that hired them. Sometimes their information can be irrelevant, or sometimes the information can be used to understand complicated issues. The defense used a forensic psychiatrist to counter the prosecution’s testimony. Dr. Donald Lunde provided a definition of coercion as a psychological phenomenon that is present when someone has threatened someone else directly with death. The Jury found Hooker guilty on seven of eight crimes, including kidnapping and many accounts of rape.
Experts are more than just people, they are tools used to intensify power in many aspects of court and so on. They also have one of the most important jobs there is to have, because they excel in a field where not many people understand the information they come across. The purpose of experts in court is to help judges and jurors understand certain information and knowledge so they can make a fair legal decision. Experts aren’t supposed to be biased, they are supposed to do their job and show what the evidence has provided. But, this isn’t always the case. Experts in certain fields can make quite a bit of money, and this could possibly lead to the occurrence of making false findings. If an expert is over paid, an explanation must be made to why they were paid the amount. Thankfully, judges are able to make judgments on the credibility of the expert witnesses themselves.
Terms: expert testimony, brainwashing, forensic psychiatrist, biased, evidence, prosecution, defense, judge
This chapter begins with a brief telling about the Elizabeth Smart case and how she was so powerfully controlled by her abductors even when she was near help. Then it goes into the story of Colleen Stan and her ride with and later abduction by Cameron and Janice Hooker. Stan was tortured daily for months, being whipped and beaten among other things. She was then forced to sign a contract making Cameron Hooker her master and her his slave. Hooker then gave her a new name, K, and made her only call him Sir or Master. This went on for years, to a point where Colleen Stan could do things unsupervised but only if she asked permission first. It was to a point that the Hooker’s young child even realized they were holding someone captive in their home. Stan was even allowed to visit her family but Cameron Hooker’s threats about killing anyone she told about any of her experiences was extremely powerful and she returned to Hooker and her confinement. Eventually Janice told Colleen the truth about how Cameron had made up The Company and other things to brainwash her, which lead to her escaping and returning to her family. Eventually Cameron Hooker was charged with false imprisonment, kidnapping, and multiple sex offenses.
The defense in this case brought up the fact that she was held for so long but didn’t attempt to escape. The prosecution also had issues concerning Stan’s unemotional reactions to the ordeal and both sides wondered if some of the acts while she was kidnapped were consensual. The prosecution had Dr. Hatcher provide testimony because he was an expert in brainwashing, coercion, and hostage situations, among other things. After interviewing Stan he determined that she was not brainwashed, as it is something that is very rare. Using a hypothetical case in which all of the things Stan was subjected to in real life and concluded that it would be sufficient to coerce someone into a desired behavioral pattern. Hooker then took the stand to defend himself in hopes of a lesser punishment and also had members of his family testify in order to humanize him. The defense also had an expert, Dr. Lunde testified that it does not count as coercion when someone else’s life is threatened, it must be the victim’s life. Because of this fickle definition of coercion the Judge on the case told the jury to ignore it. The jury deliberated for three days and came back with a guilty verdict of kidnapping and rape on multiple counts. The case was appealed because of the Judge’s questioning and the fact that some information was left out. His appeal ended up being denied and his conviction and sentence were confirmed.
The experts that were brought into this trial and that are used in many others help the judge and jury with technical terms and specified knowledge. There is sometimes a battle of the experts or a notion that they are “hired guns,” only advocating for the side they were hired by. It is up to the jury and judges to determine what information is more pertinent and helpful to answering their legal questions.
Experts are the people who have degrees and extensive experience and knowledge in certain areas. The link had a list of many people that I didn’t know were considered experts, including attorneys and chemists. If someone has knowledge and is certified in their area of study they can shed light onto things that juries may not understand but need to know. Not every person can be an expert; they must be recognized by the legal community as valid experts in their area of study. They must be people who conduct research and actively work in their field. The Discovery Channel video on bugs was extremely disgusting but really interesting. The stages of a bug’s life and what bugs appear on certain objects is really important to determining the time and other factors of a crime, like we learned in class. These are things that need to be done and need to be researched, which would also make them experts in their field and could shed light onto a lay person about what it all means.
Terms: brainwashing, coercion, testify, expert witness, expert testimony, prosecution, defense
I found chapter seven of minds on trial to be incredibly interesting and thought provoking. It told the story of a twenty two year old woman named Colleen Stan and her terrifying abduction. Colleen left her hometown of Oregon and was headed toward California to visit a friend, which she was stupidly hitchhiking to. Colleen got into a car with a young couple, Janice and Cameron Hooker; from their appearance she deemed them as safe. This couple ended up holding her captive in their basement under heavy restrictions. For five months he kept her blindfolded, naked, and gagged. The only time Colleen was allowed to leave the basement was to eat, drink, and go to the bathroom all under Cameron’s supervision and this only happened once a day. During this time Cameron tortured Colleen, he would tie her up and whip her, burn her genitals with a heat lamp, and hold her underwater in the tub until she was unable to breathe. Eventually Cameron had his wife type up a document that was claiming they were part of a slave traders network and made it seem like Colleen had no choice but to sign it. Once Stan knew he had complete control over Colleen he gave her a little more freedom, allowing her to go for jogs, keeping in mind that if she said anything her family would be killed. This was also under Cameron’s permission. In 1981 Stan allowed Colleen to visit her family, but threatened if she mentioned anything that had happened within the last four years “the company” would have her family killed. All of this ended up falling apart due to Janice Hookers jealousy that Cameron was having sex on a regular basis with the woman they were holding captive. One day while Cameron was at work Janice let Colleen leave and she called him at a bus stop. One of the issues that the defense was raising was why a woman that was being held captive wouldn’t say anything whilst visiting her family. This is when experts are brought in to testify and educate the court and jury so they can understand why an individual may act in a certain way and give their advice on why it happened.
When reviewing the first link it kind of shocked me how much certain experts can make an hour. Especially that social workers can make 1,000 to 1,500 dollars an hour, this information was not what I expected. I was thinking that if they got paid for their expert testimony that it would be a very little sum of money.
“Experts often possess more data than judgment.”
By Colin Powell, (Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff (1989-93). At present, US Secretary of State, 1937)
Basically, chapter 7 was the complete story of a young woman named Collen Stan, who back in 1977 was abducted by a couple while she was hitchhiking. The book went into great detail of her torture, kidnapping, brainwashing, and the coercion that took place throughout her 7 years with a man named Cameron Hooker. His wife, Janice Hooker also played a role in her captivity and in allowing everything to happen to Stan. The latter part of the chapter focused on the trial of Cameron and how the conviction came about in reference to some expert testimony. There were a couple of psychologists that were called to the stand but unfortunately due to the judge, only one side was really taken into consideration due to what a judge may have been said. Another point and what I found most shocking was how a judge can eject or decide to allow what an expert psychologist or any expert for that matter reveals to a jury. I just assumed that when you are considered an expert that a court of law would automatically just agree but it is in our human nature to judge everyone including experts.
The expert’s guidelines for the hourly rate and guidelines that was also attached was very surprising. I had never even realized that this is also public record and would have to be documented somewhere. I was completely surprised by the figures and how little a psychologist would make an hour to testify in court for a case. I was also surprised at the amount of a social worker. I find this very interesting because I have come to realize that the mental health divisions and justice system will only become more intertwined in the future than ever before. Mental illnesses are becoming more and more relevant to cases as well as ways to help them rather than just to incarcerate them.
I was already a fan of the show Dirty Jobs even though some of the experts televised had some very disgusting jobs. Yet, it clearly shows how somebody has do it in whatever field whether psychological or law field.
Experts and their roles in the judicial system play a vital role and will continue to because society is realizing that human behaviors are affected by what a person is going through or is diagnosed with. For example, someone who is diagnosed with schizophrenia, which is a mental disorder can’t be tried the same way as a normal person if they were going through a criminal proceeding. It would take an expert like a psychiatrist, psychologist, and/or doctor of some sorts to verify that in fact a person suffers from this type of disorder. An expert psychologist is important in a criminal case because they have the extensive knowledge of forensic evaluations as well as how to present them in court. Most experts are trained and qualified to administer and score objective and using different testing instruments and/or techniques.
Terms: Judgment, abducted, torture, kidnapping, brainwashed, coercion, captivity, trial, conviction, expert testimony, psychologists, the stand, judge, jury, court of law, mental health, justice system, mental illness, incarcerate, schizophrenia, criminal, expert, psychiatrists, psychology, forensic, evaluations, experts, testing, criminal proceedings, and mental disorder.
This chapter discussed what happened to Colleen Stan for 7 years. She was hitch hiking and got in the wrong car. They made her put her head in a box and she was forced to return to their home and become a hostage. She was Hooker’s sadistic sex slave. She was forced to be bounded by rope, tied up, and blind folded when she wasn’t forced to wear the box over her head. She was also burned in private places, submerged in the tub or toilet (?) until she was unable to breathe. Although she was punished like this, for about a year I believe she was able to go running without supervision, visit her family two days. She never tried to escape though. Hatcher, who is an expert in terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion was sought to explain why Stan never tried to escape the imprisonment.
Prior to reading this chapter I never thought to give expert testimony’s a second thought. I always thought that they were merely giving proven claims that would benefit either side. I never thought that I would be reading a chapter that showed how biased and rather ridiculous some of them can actually be. The prosecution and defense brought in experts to testify on their behalf. Although they are both experts, only one of them made a valid point and seemed like a credible source. The defense wasted their money bringing in Dr. Lunde. He was making the weakest rebuttals to the prosecution and they were not credible. He stated preposterous things that were inaccurate that the judge questioned him on several occasions and after the jury came up with their verdict he discredited him. The judge stated to the jury that he commended them for having the intelligence to reject the testimony of Dr. Lunde. The judge believed that witnesses like that are menaces to the criminal justice system. I liked that he said they are paid advocates, there’s truth to it and it’s simple to understand.
I think that this chapter correlates psychology and law very well. Expert testimonies are not intended to be psychologically used. They are of legal use and they just happen to intertwine with psychology. For instance in the case of the prosecution their expert had to do with psychology. He explained why She, like Elizabeth Smart, didn’t try to escape from her home. He listed everything he did to her and explained the effects that would have on a person. Law and psychology working together to prosecute the defense.
The bugs video was disgusting. I understand that it’s an expert job to understand what that entails but by the way they were training that guy it didn’t seem as though it was a hard concept. Being able to determine whether it was active decay or accelerated decay seemed like common sense. It is most definitely a dirty job and somebody has to do it.
The purpose of expert testimony is to provide judges and jurors with technical or specialized knowledge that will help in the process of making legal decisions.
Terms: hostage, negotiations, brainwashing, coercion, imprisonment, testimony, prosecution, defense, experts,
The main argument of this chapter was over the possibility to “brainwash” another person. In this chapter, Colleen Stan, a 20 year old from Oregon, was kidnapped and was coerced into being a sex slave. Cameron Hooker kidnapped her and held her hostage in a box in his basement for several months. He would let her out only once a day to use the restroom and to eat. After several months of this torture, Hooker made her sign a paper saying she was his servant and if she did not comply with his wishes, then he would give her to a company who would sell her into sex slavery. After several years of being held captive, Stan was allowed to visit her family for the weekend. Seven years after the kidnapping, Hooker’s wife, Janice, disclosed information about Stan to her pastor. The pastor, advised her to take Stan and leave Hooker. Janice Hooker did as she was told. Police arrested Hooker several months later and charged him with false imprisonment, kidnapping, and several sex offenses. Hooker’s attorney claimed that because Stan could have left at any point in time, the sexual acts between them were consensual. The prosecution put an expert on the stand that claimed that brainwashing was in fact a rare occurrence and happens in a few cases. He also stated that because of the extreme conditions Stan was put through and the horrifying Indenture she had to sign, she was brainwashed into thinking that Hooker was saving her from something worse. The defense also called upon an expert whom of which claimed that in order to be brainwashed, one had to be under extreme circumstances in which the possibility of death had to be present. The judge, however, threw out his testimony due to it being inaccurate. The judge also further questioned the defense expert to clarify further statements. After the jury had found Hooker guilty on seven counts, his attorney claimed that the judge had taken the prosecutions side when he began to question the defense’s expert. However, since his attorney did not say anything immediately after the situation had occurred, they could not appeal the trial.
Experts are people who are very knowledgeable in their field. This field may be anything. For example, the video with Mike Rowe shows him trying to catch flies from a dead pig. The people who are telling him what to do are scientists from Purdue University. Researchers can study the insects to further their knowledge about both the flies and how they affect the environment. If evidence relating to insects was relevant to a case, attorneys may ask for experts to share their knowledge of the element to a jury or judge. The experts are supposed to help aid in giving information in which the general public may not understand or know about. This would help the jury make a proper verdict about the defense.
Key terms: comply, testimony, prosecution, defense, expert, kidnapping
The chapter in Minds on Trial associated with judging the experts is surrounded by information regarding the abduction of Colleen Stan. Colleen Stan’s case sets the stage for a circumstance in which we can look at a situation judging experts clearly. Colleen Stan, in 1977, was a 20 year old girl who had decided she wanted to hitch hike across country to see one of her friends in California. After being picked up by the Hookers, a couple whom had agreed to take her part of the way, Colleen instantly felt bothered by their mannerisms. A conversation that led Colleen to a secluded area left her in a vulnerable state; held at knifepoint, Colleen’s head was put into a box that muffled all sound and prohibited her to see anything and was transported back to the home of the Cameron and Janice Hooker. Once there Colleen endured many sexual offenses as well as several forms of abuse. Seized by her fear, Colleen continued to do what Cameron Hooker told her to do and never did anything without asking permission first. Seven years went by before Colleen was officially released by Cameron to go home and even then she never went to the police. It wasn’t until a neighbor called authorities that Colleen’s case was tried in front of a judge and a jury. During the trial several experts testified on her behalf as well as the defenses’. Through a turn of events and a correct definition of coercion, Cameron Hooker was charged with over 150 years in prison and an expert’s opinion was heavily scrutinized.
Dr. Donald Lunde, a forensic psychiatrist operating on the defense’s behalf, was on the clinical faculty at Stanford Medical School. Lunde along with Hatcher, the prosecution’s expert, provided his definition of coercion. Lunde’s definition was more operational than Hatcher’s being “a psychological phenomenon that is present when someone has threatened someone else directly with death.” This statement to me implies that just because Hooker threatened Colleen didn’t mean that he coerced her. This is an important aspect of expert testimony to point out. Just because an expert makes a certain statement regarding the facts of a case doesn’t mean they are absolutely true. Too many times in cases I think people are taken at face value because they have a degree and a title that tells people what they do. Each aspect of what experts are saying should be researched further into how they came up with that conclusion. For instance in Colleen’s case, each side had their own experts and each expert interviewed only their own client in preparation for trial. In my opinion experts need to stay as objective as possible and apply what they absolutely know to a trial. In Colleen’s case, clearly the defense expert, Dr. Lunde did not stay objective but rather interviewed only Cameron Hooker to possibly help Hooker and the defense out of an aversive ruling.
Reflecting on and applying what I had read in MOT to the website with listed experts and what they get paid when testifying only persuaded me further to believe that we need to analyze what these experts are saying during a trial. They are often times recruited by both the defense and prosecuting sides to reflect what each believe. It certainly doesn’t help that when they are testifying some of them get a very hefty paycheck for their time. However the amount of pay could potentially work both ways. While it could persuade one expert into picking sides it also could stand as a reinforcement to stay as objective as possible. The forensic entomologists’ jobs that we viewed on the other webpage were first and foremost disgusting. Retrieving bugs from decaying bodies does not sound like any fun at all. However I can see how experts in this field are necessary. Being able to look at a decaying body and collecting the bug life around it tell entomologists a lot about the time of death and where the death took place judging by the kinds of bugs visible around the body.
Terms: Forensic entomologists, judge, jury, objective, subjective, reinforcement, coercion, prosecution, experts, testimony, abuse, sexual offenses, trial.
This chapter of Minds on Trial described the unique circumstances surrounding the case of Colleen Stan. She was kidnapped, then kept in isolation and her head was put inside a head box that remained on for several months at a time and was used as a tool to disorient and subdue her. She was then locked up in a cage and raped for years, until her captor Cameron Hooker presented her with a false contract outlining the conditions of her captivity, and slowly allowed her freedoms around the house, and even to see her family. The psychological implications of controlling and humiliating a person on such a severe scale were the main topic at the trial, because the Prosecutor knew that it would be difficult for a jury to believe her story or understand why she acted so indifferent to the ordeal she’d been through. Because of that exact reason, the prosecution hired a psychologist to act as an expert witness and explain to the jury how and why such harsh lack of light, and communication as well as the extreme control over everything from mobility to elimination caused her to become utterly obedient and dependent upon Hooker, and eventually no longer questioned his authority.
Experts on a whole are simply a person, usually with a professional background in a certain field who is asked, and usually paid to testify at trails where their specific and in depth knowledge of a certain area or field would aid in the jury’s understanding of the case. This is obviously a very general definition, but it’s intended to be such because depending on the details and circumstances of a case, it is possible that anyone from a plumber, to a psychologist could testify as an expert.
Experts can really affect the outcome of a jury trial, especially if only one side has one. The jury usually doesn’t know what to believe, and has trouble understanding difficult and intricate details of the case. In this sort of situation, and expert can be very helpful simply because by labeling them as expert they immediately command an air of authority. And psychology tells us that anytime an authority figure is involved, we treat them with more respect, and often don’t question them. This principle was shown in the somewhat controversial experiment where they had men administer “electric shocks” to a “man behind the wall”, and would then hear screaming or some other feedback. This experiment showed that simply by the doctor being in the same room as the man administering shocks the man more likely to continue because of the doctor’s authority in the situation, even when that man ultimately had authority over the “man behind the wall”. It is this authority factor that most prosecuting or defense lawyers are working toward, because if they present an expert the jury is very likely to believe them.
This same idea that a jury is likely to accept everything that an expert says, is also why judges have to approve and allow expert testimony on a case by case basis, because if the judge believes that the jury may put too much weight into what the expert presents he may not allow the expert to testify because it would be unfair. Another reason that judges must screen potential experts is to ensure that at least the judge believes that that person is qualified to testify to his/her knowledge of a particular aspect of the case.
Terms: isolation, disorient and subdue her, psychological implications, controlling and humiliating, trial, Prosecutor, jury, psychologist, expert witness, authority, jury trial, experiment, defense lawyers, expert testimony,
Chapter 7 Cameron Hooker/ Experts
In the case of Cameron Hooker I was completely drawn in on how he was able to brainwash and control Colleen Stan. To think that someone can be so manipulating, and deviant that they can make someone do whatever they want them to, even when they are not in there supervision.
In the court room, people were overwhelmed by the mannerism of Colleen Stan. She was clam and expressed an unemotional testimony against Hooker. Due to the lack of abrasive emotion when Stan testified made jurors think that some of the actions that had taken place were consensual. However, expert Dr. Chris Hatcher refuted this claim. He was a forensic psychologist and an expert in terrorism, hostage negotiations, brainwashing, and coercion. He was part of this case to explain why Colleen Stan acted, and presented herself in an unemotional manner. Dr. Chris Hatcher interviewed Stan and explained to the jury how the use of kidnapping, and coercion transformed Colleen Stan’s whole beliefs of life, and why she explained the events in the manner that she did. However, the judge said that Hatcher’s testimony be limited and that the prosecutor could not ask him specific that speculated on Hooker’s case. Before the expert testimony took place, Hooker provided his own testimony. He presented himself in a calm manner, and “softened” the details of the crime, they even brought in his family to sway the jurors and give him more sympathy. The next expert that was brought into the case was Dr. Donald Lunde who was also a forensic psychologist and had experience in case of human captivity and coercion. Lunde was trying to explain to the jury that the way coercion was used on Colleen Stan was not directly withholding her from her seeing her family, but that Hooker threatened to harm her family. Before Lunde could fully discuss his testimony the judge interrupted him and stated that his definition of coercion was false, and told the jury to dismiss that from the case. The judge also insisted that Hooker’s techniques were similar to those proceeded at “boot camp”. Later we find out that that Lunde was, according to the judge, “…posing as an objective scientist, when, in fact, he was nothing but a paid advocate”. However, the judge himself addressed to the jury that they were intelligent, for being intelligent enough to dismiss Lunde’s judgments. Hooker felt that his trial was held unfairly, and that by the judge questioning Lunde would make the jury change their decision. It was also thought that since Hooker’s attorney did not object to the questioning of Lunde it would show to the jury that what Lunde had said was important. Even so, if the questioning of the judge would have been found wrong, there was still enough physical evidence of the head box and the testimonies from Colleen Stan and Janice Hooker. Hooker was convicted and later Janice divorced him. Overall, from this case we can see that there are times experts paid off in order to change the turnout of a case, along with the lawyer coinciding as well.
Psychological Terms: brainwash, coercion, forensic psychologist