Abstract
This chapter will focus on identifying and promoting effective psychological mitigation in death penalty cases. The role of the forensic psychologist in providing applicable mitigation consistent with common statutory guidelines among states will be addressed including legal precedents. Legal guidelines and statutory requirements for working in death penalty cases will be highlighted to optimize the effectiveness of mitigation information. Issues that relate to the ways that forensic psychologists and counsel must collaborate from the initiation of the case to its conclusion with counsel will be highlighted. Important ethical and legal points will be illustrated to include (1) identifying how to use relevant mitigating factors in the defendant’s life history in a legal context for jury consideration, (2) identifying collateral sources of information that can yield helpful mitigation, and (3) identifying areas in which forensic psychologists can assist counsel in both the guilt and sentencing phases of capital cases. The collaborative efforts of the defense team are described with emphasis on identifying areas in which attorneys and mental health experts can enhance mitigation efforts and effectively maximize testimony in both the guilt and penalty phases. Special emphasis is placed on preparing the expert for presenting information in both oral and written forms for both defense attorneys and experts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
1 In Witherspoon, and, later, in Wainwright v. Witt (1985), the Court had held that a prospective juror may be seated in a capital case, despite general objections to the death penalty, if he can demonstrate that his personal views will not prevent him from following the law; see Witt, p. 424 (standard for determining when a prospective juror may be excluded for cause because of his views on capital punishments is “whether the juror’s views would ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath”’).
- 2.
2 See State v. Biegenwald, 1987, pp. 155–156. At the time that the Biegenwald case was decided, New Jersey’s death penalty statute (see N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:11-3 et seq.) was substantially similar to the Pennsylvania law. That penalty was abolished in New Jersey in 2007. See State v. Kenney 2010, p. *8.
- 3.
4 For an earlier statement of a test to determine the extent to which mitigation based on mental disorder would be appropriate in a capital case, see Liebman & Shepard, 1978, p. 818 (discussed in 4 Perlin, 2002, § 12-3.2, pp. 492–493):
-
1.
Whether the offender’s suffering evidences expiation or inspires compassion.
-
2.
Whether the offender’s cognitive and/or volitional impairment at the time he committed the crime affected his responsibility for his actions, and thereby diminished society’s need for revenge.
-
3.
Whether the offender, subjectively analyzed, was less affected than the mentally normal offender by the deterrent threat of capital punishment at the time he committed the crime.
-
4.
Whether the exemplary value of capitally punishing the offender, as objectively perceived by reasonable persons, would be attenuated by the difficulty those persons would have identifying with the executed offender.
-
1.
- 4.
- 5.
6 This section is generally adapted from Perlin (2013).
- 6.
7 On the use of experts, see Clarke (1995), p. 1374:
-
It is not easy for lawyers, who may lack insight into the process, to see how use of mental health experts can, without testifying to insanity, place the crime, which may otherwise appear to be inexplicable, in a mitigating context that allows the jury to see the accused as a flawed person rather than as a less than human monster.
-
- 7.
8 On how neuroimaging may play a role (or not) in determinations of whether a defendant is competent to be executed, see Perlin (2010).
- 8.
9 On the specific relationship perceived by the public on the relationship between mental illness and evil, see Perlin (2001–2002), p. 239 n. 30.
- 9.
10 Although Dylan sings in referring to the judge, that “a tear came to his eye,” (Ibid) the evidence is less than sparse that this is replicated in any of the cases discussed in this paper.
References
42 Pa. C.S.A. §9711 (c) (1) (iii).
42 Pa. C.S.A. §9711 (c)(4).
42 Pa. C.S.A. §9711 (e).
42 Pa. C.S.A. §9711 (e) (2).
42 Pa. C.S.A. §9711 (e) (3).
42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9711 (d).
American Bar Association. (2003). Commentary to the ABA guidelines for the appointment and performance of defense counsel in death penalty cases. Hofstra Law Review, 31, 913–1090.
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 318 (2002).
Atkins, E. L., Podboy, J., Larson, K., & Schenker, N. (2006). Forensic psychological consultation in US death penalty cases in state and federal courts. Presentation. San Francisco, CA: American College of Forensic Psychology.
Black’s Law Dictionary (5 Ed. 1979, 903).
Blume, J., & Leonard, P. B. (2000). Capital cases: Principles of developing and presenting mental health evidence in criminal cases. Champion, 24, 63–71.
Blume, J., & Paavola, E. (2011). Life, death, and neuroimaging: The advantages and disadvantages of the defense’s use of neuroimages in capital cases – Lessons from the front. Mercer Law Review, 62, 909–931. Bonifay v. State, 680 So. 2d, 413, 416 (1996).
Bright, S. (1990). Death by lottery – Procedural bar of constitutional claims in capital cases due to inadequate representation of indigent defendants. West Virginia Law Review, 92, 679–695.
California v. Brown, 479 U.S. 538, 545–46 (1987). Campbell v. State, 571 So. 415 (1990). Chesire v. State, 568, So.2d, 908, 911 (1990).
Clarke, A. (1995). Procedural labyrinths and the injustice of death: A critique of death penalty habeas corpus (part one). University of Richmond Law Review, 29, 1327–1388.
Coyne, R., & Entzeroth, L. (2006). Capital punishment & the judicial process (3rd ed., pp. 148–154). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Cunningham, M. D. & Goldstein, A. M. (2003). Handbook of psychology. In A. M. Goldstein (Volume Ed.), I. B. Weiner (Ed.). Forensic psychology (Vol. 11). New York: Wiley.
Eddings v. Oklahoma (455 U.S. 104 (1982)).
Foglia, W. D., & Schenker, N. M. (2001). Capital cases. Champion, 25, 26–31.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).
Galliher, J. M., & Galliher, J. F. (2001/2002). A “commonsense” theory of deterrence and the “ideology” of science: The New York state death penalty debate. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 92, 307–333.
Glueck, S. S. (1924). Mitigation of punishment and evidence of mental unsoundness. 22 Mental Hygiene, 948, 955.
Goldstein, A. M., & Bursztajn, H. J. (2011). Capital litigation: Special considerations. InE. Y. Drogin, F. M.Dattilio, R. L. Sadoff, & T. G. Gutheil (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Assessment: Psychological and Psychiatric Perspectives (pp. 145–170). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153 (1976).
Haas, K. C. (2008). The emerging death penalty jurisprudence of the Roberts Court. Pierce Law Review, 6, 387–440.
Haney, C. (1984). Examining death qualification: Further analysis of the process effect. Law and Human Behavior, 8(1/2), 133–151.
Jochnowitz, L. D. (2011). How capital jurors respond to mitigating evidence of defendant’s mental illness, retardation, and situational impairments: An analysis of the legal and social science literature. Criminal Law Bulletin, 47(5), 839–883.
Jurek v. Texas 428 U.S. 262 (1976).
Lenamon. (2010). http://www.deathpenaltyblog.com/
Liebman, J. S. & Shepard, M. J. (1978). Guiding capital sentencing discretion beyond the “boiler plate”: Mental disorder as a mitigating factor. Geo. L.J., 66, 757.
Lockett v. Ohio (438 U.S. 586, 606, 1978).
Meltsner, M. (1973). Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment. Random House: New York City. Martin, M. (1993). Defending the mentally ill client in criminal matters: Ethics, advocacy, and responsibility. University of Toronto Faculty Law Review, 52, 73–131.
Note. (1994). The eighth amendment and ineffective assistance of counsel in capital trials. Harvard Law Review, 107, 1923–1940. Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (2007).
Penry v. Lynaugh 492 U.S. 302, 322 (1989). People v. Smith, 841 N.E. 2d 489 (2005).
Perlin, M. L. (1989–1990). Unpacking the myths: The symbolism mythology of insanity defense jurisprudence. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 40, 599–731.
Perlin, M. L. (1994). The Sanist lives of jurors in death penalty cases: The puzzling role of mitigating mental disability evidence. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 8, 239–279.
Perlin, M. L. (1996). The executioner’s face is always well-hidden: The role of counsel and the courts in determining who dies. New York Law School Law Review, 41, 201–236.
Perlin, M. L. (2001–2002). What’s good is bad, what’s bad is good, you’ll find out when you reach the top, you’re on the bottom: Are the Americans with Disabilities Act (and Olmstead v. L.C.) anything more than “Idiot Wind”?. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 35, 235–261.
Perlin, M. L. (2002). Mental disability law: Civil and criminal (2nd ed., Vol. 4). Newark, NJ: Lexis-Nexis.
Perlin, M. L. (2009). “And I see through your brain”: Access to experts, competency to consent, and the impact of antipsychotic medications in neuroimaging cases in the criminal trial process. Stanford Technology Law Review, 4.
Perlin, M. L. (2010). “Good and bad, I defined these terms, quite clear no doubt somehow”: Neuroimaging and competency to be executed after Panetti. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 28, 671–689.
Perlin, M. L. (2013). Mental disability and the death penalty: The shame of the states. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Perri v. State, 441 So. 2d 606 (1983).
Poulos, J. W. (1986). The supreme court, capital punishment and the substantive criminal law: The rise and fall of mandatory capital punishment. Arizona Law Review, 28, 143–237.
President’s Commission on Mental Health. (1978). Mental health and human rights: Report of the task panel on legal and ethical issues. Arizona Law Review, 20, 49–174.
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976).
Ring v. Arizona 536 U.S. 584 (2002).
Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976).
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
Showalter, C. R., & Bonnie, R. (1984). Psychiatry and capital sentencing: Risks and responsibilities in a unique legal setting. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 12, 159.
Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1 (1986).
State v. Bartholomew, 683 P.2d 1079, 1088 (Wash. 1984).
State v. Biegenwald, 524 A.2d 130, 155–56 (N.J. 1987).
State v. Kenney, 2010 WL 3075642, 8 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2010).
State v. Morton, 715 A.2d 228, 277 (N.J. 1998).
Stetler, R. (2007–2008). The mystery of mitigation: What jurors need to make a reasoned moral response in capital sentencing. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, 11, 237–260.
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1983).
Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004).
Trager, O. (2004). Keys to the rain: The definitive Bob Dylan encyclopedia. New York, NY: Billboard Books. Trease v. State, 768 So. 1050, 1055 (2000).
Vann, L. S. (2011). History repeats itself: The post-Furman return to arbitrariness in capital punishment. University of Richmond Law Review, 45, 1255–1288.
Vick, D. W. (1995). Poorhouse justice: Underfunded indigent defense services and arbitrary death sentences. Buffalo Law Review, 43, 329–460.
White, W. S. (1993). Effective assistance of counsel in capital cases: The evolving standard of care. University of Illinois Law Review, 323–378. Wickham v. State, 593, So. 2d 191, 194 (1991)
Wiggins v. Smith 539 U.S. 510 (2003).
Witherspoon v. Illinois 391 U.S. 510 (1968).
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McClain, V., Atkins, E., Perlin, M.L. (2014). “Oh, Stop That Cursed Jury”: The Role of the Forensic Psychologist in the Mitigation Phase of the Death Penalty Trial. In: Morewitz, S., Goldstein, M. (eds) Handbook of Forensic Sociology and Psychology. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7178-3_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-7178-3_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-7177-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-7178-3
eBook Packages: Behavioral ScienceBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)