Browsing by Author "Titcomb, Caroline Richards"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    First impressions from the jury box: how the length of expert testimony influences mock trial deliberations
    (University of Alabama Libraries, 2010) Titcomb, Caroline Richards; Brodsky, Stanley L.; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    The present study examined the influence that a juror's first impressions of an expert witness might have on two outcomes: judgments of the witness' credibility, and verdict decisions in a criminal case involving a Not Guilty by Insanity (NGRI) defense. This was the first study to use "thin slice" methodology to manipulate time exposed to expert testimony and assess reliability of witness credibility ratings over time. This study also examined the degree to which these impressions influence the relationship between juror opinions and jury decision-making. A 2 (non-deliberating vs. deliberating jury) X 3 (observing 30 seconds, 5 minutes, or 10 minutes of expert witness testimony) between subjects design was implemented. Participants (N = 188, 30 mock juries) viewed a videotaped presentation of testimony from an actor portraying a forensic mental health professional called on by the defense. Mock juror characteristics, responses to a thought listing measure, and transcriptions from the videotaped jury deliberations were coded for exploratory analysis. Primary results, obtained via Hierarchical Linear Mixed Modeling to account for the random effect of group, were supported by jury-level analysis. Despite support for the accuracy of "thin slice" judgments in the literature, results found that jurors in the 30 second condition judged the expert as significantly less credible in this study. Results did not support the anticipated leniency shift in juries post-deliberation, and instead, yielded a significant two-way interaction on verdict for the 30 second group, such that non-deliberating jurors were more lenient than deliberating jurors. Implications for understanding how impressions of expert witness testimony translate from the juror to the deliberation room are discussed, with particular attention to cases with an increased likelihood of bias against the NGRI defense.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Medication state at the time of the offense: medication noncompliance and criminal responsibility
    (University of Alabama Libraries, 2014) Titcomb, Caroline Richards; Brodsky, Stanley L.; University of Alabama Tuscaloosa
    Ethical and due process concerns arise when insanity standards lack a nuanced picture of how society views mental illness and its effects on the volitional nature of a defendant's actions. This project examined whether mock jurors consider meta-responsibility (MR) of mentally ill defendants, how they think about MR in relation to criminal responsibility, and if various degrees of MR differentially influence defendant responsibility and guilt. The MR benchmark manipulation was medication compliance (or noncompliance; MNC) for a NGRI defendant at three levels: medication compliant (MC/control), purposive MNC, and inadvertent MNC. The type of MNC was manipulated by establishing the defendant's insight into his illness as either High or Low. A second variable - the extent to which a forensic mental health expert explains issues relevant to the defendant's MR (i.e., MNC and insight into one's mental illness) - was also manipulated. Using a between-subjects jury deliberation paradigm and a mixed quantitative-qualitative methodology, results did not yield the hypothesized interactions between a NGRI defendant's MNC, insight, and testimony elaboration on MR and verdict. Results suggest that as ecological validity of the study parameters increased, effects found in prior research with more experimental control were unsupported. Findings were consistent with research suggesting jurors are unlikely to recognize the complexity of the relationship between a defendant's MNC and volitional, informed decision-making; thus, readily attributing MR to NGRI defendants at the cost of overlooking individual differences in case facts related to some of the key determinants of their verdicts such as MNC and insight into one's illness. Implications for future research, NGRI proceedings, and forensic mental health expert testimony are discussed.