Question

Image transcription text

Order 363124181 X Content X confrontation clause crawford - S X criminal evidence what is an oral X + X F - C highpoint.blackboard.com/ultra/courses/_20921_1/cl/outline Paused Apps M Gmail YouTube Maps Law Homework W Orders Reading list P O WORDS POWERED BY T QUESTION 12 3 points Save A You represent Leader and want to call a psychologist to testify about Superior's state of mind, specificaly the effect of the job rejection on Superior's conduct. The prosecution objects that it is not a proper subject matter for expert testimony. How do you respond? For the toolbar, press ALT+F10 (PC) or ALT+FN+F10 (Mac). BIUS Paragraph Arial 10pt F V = V A v _ V x X6 0 Q Q ... P O WORDS POWERED BY T ick Save and Submit to save and submit. Click Save All Answers to save all answers. Save All Answers Save and 363124181-Crimi..docx 363124181-Crimi.docx w 363123883.edited.docx Criminal Evidence..docx w Order ID 363123....docx Show all X Type here to search O w P 2:26 PM 68 F Sunny 2/12/2022

... Show more

On June 21, the first day of summer, people gathered to celebrate the summer solstice.  Ascending to the town of Peak's high point, people watched the sun slowly set over the horizon.    Just as the sun set, an unknown female screamed, "He's got a gun!"  Shots rang out.  People scattered.  Vic Tym felt a searing pain rip through Tym's torso.  Tym managed two more steps and collapsed dead, uttering, "I've been hit." Asia Minor, seven years old, was walking with her mom to Peak's high point when the shooting started.  She looked up to see a mob of people charging at her.  She yelled, "Mom," and grabbed her mom but it was too late.  The fleeing mob knocked her over and trampled her to death. Other than Tym and Minor, twenty more were injured by the shooting or the ensuing hysteria.

Local, state and federal police quickly arrived on the scene and restored order but not before shooting and killing the initial shooter.  They identified the dead shooter as I.M. Superior.  Further investigation revealed Superior was an avowed White Nationalist.  On his Instagram page, Superior posted gun photos and various memes depicting his viewpoints.  His last post occurred twenty-four hours prior to the June 21 shooting.  It warned that the time had come for the Aryan race to take action.  He said that he would lead the way. 

The investigation also uncovered a HateChan profile for Superior.  Investigators found Superior had become "radicalized" through his participation in various HateChan chat rooms.  HateChan was created for and used by people who held a similar view that the Aryan race needed protecting from society at large.  People on the site routinely complained about their circumstances and blamed the situation on immigration and all other ethnic groups. Often these conversations talked of violence.  One post, made by Emmy Grant, proclaimed that "All non-white people are not real Americans and should be sent back where they came from."  Over time, the site gained worldwide members, topping one million individual accounts.  In the last six months, worldwide, HateChan members initiated four different mass shootings that resulted in 53 deaths.  After each shooting, HateChan's public affairs office released a statement condemning the use of violence and that their primary goal is to give people a place to speak their minds.

One user, in particular, seemed to stoke the flames.  Harry N. Leader, HateChan's founder, had quickly identified Superior as someone searching for something.  Using the same board Superior used, Leader posted a collection of self-produced videos discussing how the Aryan race was becoming more and more oppressed.  The videos encouraged those watching to take action in their home towns.  Leader also sent personal messages to Superior encouraging Superior to act on behalf of the Aryan race.  One message said that "White people must stand up for their God-given rights and not allow any foreigners to get in their way."  Never, however, did Leader promote violent action.  Instead, he remained vague about specific action.

Superior was a lonely and tormented soul.  He had just graduated from a university and was looking for work.  He received rejection after rejection.  His parents had cut off their support because they believed he was not trying hard enough to find a job.  One particular rejection stung Superior.  He thought he had a good shot at the position but was rejected at the last minute.  When he went to the office to find an explanation, he found that the company had hired someone from South America.  When he complained to a local bartender, the bartender told Superior about HateChan.  The next morning, while recovering from his drinking, he created a HateChan account. Days later, he received his first message from Leader.

With Superior killed at the scene and the local populace demanding law enforcement action, the local prosecutor decided to prosecute Harry N. Leader on two counts of Murder in the First Degree.  To make a case for murder, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that:

  1. Superior killed a person
  2. After deliberation (defined as cool reflection on the matter for any period of time, no matter how brief)
  3. Leader, with the purpose of promoting the commission of Murder in the First Degree, aided or attempted to aid Superior in the planning or the commission of the offense.

Answer & Explanation
Verified Solved by verified expert


In the present case, the court should permit the introduction of evidence challenging the scientific accuracy of psychological techniques and diagnoses before taking judicial notice, tacit or otherwise, of psychology as a scientific discipline. Second, if such psychological evidence is deemed prima facie admissible given its reliability and validity, courts should then weigh its probative value against the countervailing factors. In practice, the application of this second recommendation would probably result in the exclusion of all but the most accurate psychological evidence and the expert testimony based thereon.

Step-by-step explanation

Psychologists in the United States have served as expert witnesses since at least the early 1920's; however, it was not until 1940 that the issue of the admissibility of psychological expert testimony was directly addressed by a state supreme court. Three decisions, People v. Hawthorne, Hidden v. Mutual Life Insurance Company,17 and Jenkins v. United States,'8 form the basis of modern legal authority for the proposition that psychologists who are qualified in terms of their education and experience may freely offer an opinion about the presence or absence of mental disorders and their causal connection with criminal or tortious conduct. A majority of those jurisdictions that have discussed the admissibility of such testimony hold that psychologists and psychiatrists should be treated equally. To date psychological expert testimony has been accepted in either a criminal or civil context by four of the eleven federal circuits and seventeen states.
The qualifications of the psychological expert witness usually include possession of a doctoral degree in clinical psychology, a license by the state to practice psychology, teaching experience at the college or graduate school level, and engagement in private practice or employment by a state mental institution or private clinic. Other relevant factors include the expert's participation in a clinical internship, membership in the American Psychological Association, diplomate status with the American Board of Examiners in Professional Psychology, and publication of articles in professional journals.
Rules of evidence are designed to permit the orderly and logical presentation of information to the trier of fact so that the truth may be fairly and justly ascertained. Initial determinations of materiality and relevancy are left to the discretion of the trier of law, and the ultimate determination of the evidence's probative value is reserved for the trier of fact. Evidence is considered material if it bears upon an issue in the case. The concept of relevancy requires that there be a tendency of the evidence to establish a material proposition.  The appropriate inquiry is whether the information conveyed during the course of psychological expert testimony would make the probandum - the presence or absence of a mental disorder and the causal connection between the criminal or tortious conduct and such a disorder - more probable after the evidence had been received than before its receipt.
Not every purportedly scientific principle is automatically acceptable to the court as the basis for expert testimony. Exactly what type of evidence courts will classify as "scientific" and apply special rules of admissibility and exclusion to has never been satisfactorily explicated. Accidents of history or society's gradual legitimation of a particular scientific profession, as evidenced by licensure for example, may play a decisive role. While the admissibility of an expert's testimony generally hinges on its helpfulness to the trier of fact in a particular case, the admissibility of a scientific technique turns on its reliability, which must be evaluated in terms of a legal standard in order to promote uniformity and consistency of decision-making.
Psychological expert testimony at trial typically consists of three elements: (1) a factual description of the party's behavior during the course of the clinical examination and a report on the nature and results of any psychological tests administered, (2) a diagnosis of the individual's mental condition, and (3) an opinion as to the causal connection between the mental disorder and the issue of ultimate fact. These three testimonial components correspond to the three levels of psychological expert testimony discussed in the Introduction.
Scientific evidence may be excluded by the trier of law for two reasons. First, it may be demonstrated that the evidence is so unreliable that it has no tendency to prove the probandum for which it is offered - the logical relevancy argument. Second, even if the scientific techniques are sufficiently accurate to warrant their prima facie admission, the evidentiary counterweights require that the evidence and supporting testimony be excluded. Each of these reasons will be examined in turn. The probative value of psychological evidence should be analyzed as other types of novel scientific evidence are. A convenient analogue is polygraph evidence. While the particular scientific techniques and principles underlying polygraph expert testimony are quite different from those in psychology, both are ostensibly scientific disciplines, and there is no compelling rationale for treating one differently from the other.

Thus, in the present case, the court should permit the introduction of evidence challenging the scientific accuracy of psychological techniques and diagnoses before taking judicial notice, tacit or otherwise, of psychology as a scientific discipline. Second, if such psychological evidence is deemed prima facie admissible given its reliability and validity, courts should then weigh its probative value against the countervailing factors. In practice, the application of this second recommendation would probably result in the exclusion of all but the most accurate psychological evidence and the expert testimony based thereon.