Psychology and Criminal Law Fall 2014 Barry Rosenfeld, Ph.D., ABPP James A. Cohen Department of Psychology School of Law, 9nth Floor Tel: 718-718- 3794 Tel: 212-636- 6822 rosenfeld@fordham.edu jcohen@law.fordham.edu Class is in Room 9-05 This course is designed to provide an overview to the interaction between psychology and the criminal law. We will focus primarily on the three major aspects in which psychologists are involved in the criminal justice system: competence to stand trial evaluations, mental state at the time of the offense (mens rea and the insanity defense), and the assessment of risk/prediction of future dangerousness. One of the guiding principles in forensic psychology, which will be reflected in this course, is the need to understand legal standards in order to tailor psychological knowledge and practice to the courts. As such, the content of the course will be evenly divided between understanding the legal issues involved and the practical application of psychological principals and knowledge. Likewise, readings and class time will be divided reviewing legal standards and case law and the psychological research, theories and techniques related to these issues. In additional, specific topics such as forensic psychological assessment, report writing, and expert testimony will be discussed. Grading is based on three factors, weighted approximately equally: Participation in class discussions Mock trial (team grade) Term paper Final papers are due by 5 pm, December 22 (the last day of the examination period). Papers must be emailed to both Professors Cohen and Rosenfeld. NB: Law students who wish to use the final paper to fulfill the writing requirement should consult the law school s requirements (see http://law.fordham.edu/registrar/2763.htm) Textbook: Melton, G., Petrilla, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (2008). Psychological evaluations for the courts, 3 rd Ed. New York: Guilford Note: Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, all students, with or without disabilities, are entitled to equal access to the programs and activities of Fordham University. If you believe that you have a disabling condition that may interfere with your ability to participate in the activities, coursework, or assessment of the object of this course, you may be entitled to accommodations. Please schedule an appointment to speak with someone at the Office of Disability Services (Rose Hill-O'Hare Hall, Lower Level, x0655 or at Lincoln Center-Room 207, x6282. 1
Schedule Week Topic Textbook Chapter 8/25 Introduction/Overview 1 (and 2, for Psych students) 9/1 No Class: Labor Day 9/8 Forensic Assessment/Rules of Evidence 3, 4 9/15 Competence to Stand Trial 6, 19 (607-620) 9/22 Competence to Stand Trial cont. 9/29 Other Competence Issues 7, 19 (621-625) 10/6 Criminal Responsibility 8, 19 (625-634) 10/13 No Class: Columbus Day 10/20 Criminal Responsibility cont. 10/27 Mock Trial # 1 11/3 Risk Assessment: Dangerousness 9 (299-321), 19 (642-647) 11/10 Risk Assessment: Sex Offenders 9 (280-284), 19 (634-642) 11/17 The Death Penalty 9 (285-289) 11/24 Mock Trial # 2 12/1 Other Sentencing Issues/Juvenile Offenders 9 (269-280, 289-299) 12/22 Final papers due 2
Readings 9/8 Forensic Assessment / Evidence 1. Frye v. U.S., 295 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir, 1923) 2. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (1993) 3. Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. et al., v. Carmichael et al. 526 U.S. 137 (1999) 1. Committee on the Revision of the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (in press). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists. American Psychologist. 2. Faigman, D. L., & Monahan, J. (2005). Psychological evidence at the dawn of the law s scientific age. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 631-659. 9/15-22 Competence to Stand Trial 1. Dusky v. U.S., 362 U.S. 402 (1960) 2. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) 3. State v. Valentino, 356 N.Y.S. 2d 862 (1974) 4. Sell v. U.S., 539 U.S. 166 (2003) 1. Mumley, D. L., Tillbrook, C. E., & Grisso, T. (2003). Five year research update (1996-2000): Evaluations for competence to stand trial (adjudicative competence). Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 329-350. 2. Cruise, K., & Rogers, R. (1998). An analysis of competency to stand trial: an integration of case law and clinical knowledge. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 16, 35-50. 3. Slobogin, C. (2012). Sell s Conundrums. Washington University Law Review, 89, 1523-1543. 9/29 Other Competence Issues 1. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157 (1986) 2. Indiana v. Edwards, 08-206 (2008) 3. Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) 1. Litwack, T.R. (2003). The competency of criminal defendants to refuse, for delusional reasons, a viable insanity defense recommended by counsel. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 135-156. 2. Perlin, M. L. (2003). Beyond Dusky and Godinez: competency before and after trial. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 21, 297-310. 3
3. Studen, G. R. (2009). Panetti v. Quarterman: Solving the competency dilemma by broadening the concept of rational understanding in competency- to- be- executed determinations. Seton Hall Law Review, 39, 163-190. 10/6-20 Criminal Responsibility 1. McNaughton s Rule, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (1843) 2. Insanity Defense Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. 17 (1988) 3. Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985) 4. Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006) 1. Steadman, H. J., McGreevy, M. A., Morrissey, J. P., Callahah, L. A., Robbins, P. C., and Cirincione, C. (1993). Before and After Hinkley: Evaluating Insanity Defense Reform. New York: Guilford, pp. 1-31. 2. Borum, R. & Fulero, S. (1999). Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 375-394. 3. Amicus Brief (2012), Delling v. Idaho 11/3 Risk Assessment - Dangerousness 1. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983) 1. Grisso, T. & Appelbaum, P. S. (1992). Is it unethical to offer predictions of future violence? Law and Human Behavior, 16, 621-633 2. Litwack, T. R. (1993). On the ethics of dangerous assessments. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 479-482 3. Vitacco, M. J., Erickson, S. K., Kurus, S., & Apple, B. N. (2012). The role of the Violence Risk Assessment Guide and Historical, Clinical, Risk- 20 in the U.S. Courts: A case law survey. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18, 61-391. 11/10 Risk Assessment - Sex Offenders 1. Kansas v. Hendricks, 119 S. Ct. 2072 (1997) 2. Kansas v. Crane, 122 S. Ct. 867 (2002) 3. NYS Article 10 (SOTP act) 4
1. Hanson, R. K., & Thornton, D. (2000). Improving risk assessments for sex offenders: a comparison of three actuarial scales. Law and Human Behavior, 24, 119-136 2. Janus, E. S. (2000). Sexual predator commitment laws: Lessons for law and the behavioral sciences. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 5-21. 3. Prentky, R. A., Janus, E., Barbaree, H., Schwartz, B. K., & Kafka, M. P. (2006). Sexually violent predators in the courtoom: Science on trial. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 12, 357-393. 11/17 Death Penalty 1. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) 2. Gregg v. Georgia, 416 U.S. (1976) 3. Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) 4. Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) 1. Cunningham, M. D. & Vigen, M. P. (2002). Death row inmate characteristics, adjustment, and confinement: A critical review of the literature. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 20, 191-210. 2. Deichtman, M. A., Kennedy, W. A. & Beckham, J. C. (1991). Self- selection factors in the participation of mental health professionals in competency for execution evaluations. Law and Human Behavior, 15, 287-303. 3. Dekleva, K. B. (2001). Psychiatric expertise in the sentencing phase of capital murder cases. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 29, 58-67. 12/1 Other Sentencing Issues 1. Dershowitz, A. (1978). The role of psychiatry in the sentencing process. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1, 63-78. 2. Krauss, D. A. & Goldstein, A. M. (2006). The role of forensic mental health experts in federal sentencing proceedings. In Goldstein, A. M. (Ed.). Forensic Psychology: Emerging Topics and Expanding Roles. (pp. 359-383). New York: Wiley. 5