Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
  • AAPL

User menu

  • Alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
  • AAPL
  • Alerts
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Past Issues
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Print Subscriptions
  • About
    • About the Journal
    • About the Academy
    • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts
OtherREGULAR ARTICLE

Expert Testimony in Capital Sentencing: Juror Responses

John H. Montgomery, J. Richard Ciccone, Stephen P. Garvey and Theodore Eisenberg
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online January 2005, 33 (4) 509-518;
John H. Montgomery
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
J. Richard Ciccone
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Stephen P. Garvey
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Theodore Eisenberg
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Tables

  • In your mind, how well do the following words describe (DEFENDANT)
    1 Not at all2 Not well3 Fairly well4 Very well
    ___Dangerous to other people
  • In your mind, how well do the following words describe (DEFENDANT)
    1 Not at all2 Not well3 Fairly well4 Very well
    ___Emotionally unstable or disturbed
    ___Went crazy when he committed the crime
  • Did the prosecution witnesses at the punishment stage of the trial include
    1 Yes2 No3 Not sure
    ___A psychologist or psychiatrist?
  • Did the defense witnesses at the punishment stage of the trial include
    1 Yes2 No3 Not sure
    ___A psychologist or psychiatric expert?
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Means and Standard Deviations for Key Variables

    MeanStandard Deviationn
    Dangerousness3.290.95213
        Any state psychiatric testimony3.400.8583
        Any defense psychiatric testimony3.340.8885
        Both state and defense psychiatric testimony3.400.8555
        Neither state nor defense psychiatric testimony3.231.0248
    Crazy2.331.20211
        Any state psychiatric testimony2.631.1481
        Any defense psychiatric testimony2.581.2084
        Both state and defense psychiatric testimony2.701.1454
        Neither state nor defense psychiatric testimony1.731.0148
    Unstable2.331.09212
        Any state psychiatric testimony2.611.0382
        Any defense psychiatric testimony2.671.0685
        Both state and defense psychiatric testimony2.800.9555
        Neither state nor defense psychiatric testimony1.880.8748
    Crime seriousness3.700.65213
    Defendant remorse2.001.08209
    • View popup
    Table 2

    Ordered Logit Models of Dangerousness (1 = least dangerous; 4 = most dangerous)

    Model (1)Model (2)Model (3)Model (4)Model (5)Model (6)Model (7)Model (8)
    Any state psychiatrist testimony (1 = present)0.1200.2450.222−0.011−0.160
    (0.724)(0.502)(0.506)(0.981)(0.710)
    Any defense psychiatrist testimony (1 = present)0.2080.3360.3360.4781.296
    (0.589)(0.441)(0.404)(0.368)(0.300)
    Defendant’s race (1 = black)0.5090.6730.6760.6730.8550.775
    (0.307)(0.199)(0.096)(0.109)(0.067)(0.179)
    Juror’s race (1 = black)−0.765−0.715−0.715−0.980−0.993−0.803
    (0.097)(0.153)(0.024)*(0.022)*(0.031)*(0.140)
    Victim’s race (1 = black)1.3050.4460.4460.1380.4431.224
    (0.011)*(0.551)(0.616)(0.807)(0.537)(0.044)*
    Criminal history (1 = yes)1.3440.9941.296
    (0.001)†(0.022)*(0.007)†
    Crime’s seriousness (1 = least serious; 4 = most serious)0.9650.8100.927
    (0.000)†(0.000)†(0.000)†
    Remorse (1 = least remorseful; 4 = most remorseful)−0.472−0.364−0.476
    (0.024)*(0.095)(0.067)
    Observations (n)175155155142174155133123
    Prob > F0.7240.5890.0000.0000.1320.0510.1190.000
    • Probabilities are in parentheses.

    • * Significant at p < 0.05;

    • † Significant at p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Ordered Logit Models of Crazy (1 = least crazy; 4 = most crazy)

    Model (1)Model (2)Model (3)Model (4)Model (5)Model (6)Model (7)Model (8)
    Any state psychiatrist testimony (1 = present)0.6940.6980.639−0.0700.223
    (0.034)*(0.041)*(0.053)(0.871)(0.614)
    Any defense psychiatrist testimony (1 = present)1.2601.1561.2091.5791.365
    (0.000)†(0.001)†(0.000)†(0.001)†(0.008)†
    Defendant’s race (1 = black)−0.462−0.520−0.413−0.519−0.718−0.713
    (0.213)(0.172)(0.251)(0.139)(0.086)(0.072)
    Juror’s race (1 = black)−0.0440.1430.1840.4630.3610.095
    (0.911)(0.761)(0.622)(0.241)(0.422)(0.847)
    Victim’s race (1 = black)−0.0300.440−0.2720.1660.4870.768
    (0.961)(0.546)(0.655)(0.793)(0.437)(0.344)
    Criminal history (1 = yes)−0.613−0.266−0.599
    (0.079)(0.552)(0.201)
    Crime’s seriousness (1 = least serious; 4 = most serious)0.4110.2450.246
    (0.091)(0.393)(0.500)
    Remorse (1 = least remorseful; 4 = most remorseful)0.6050.6350.716
    (0.000)†(0.001)†(0.001)†
    Observations (n)173154155142172154132123
    Prob > F0.0340.0000.0080.0010.2040.0060.0070.000
    • Probabilities are in parentheses.

    • * Significant at p < 0.05;

    • † Significant at p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Ordered Logit Models of Unstable (1 = least unstable; 4 = most unstable)

    Model (1)Model (2)Model (3)Model (4)Model (5)Model (6)Model (7)Model (8)
    Any state psychiatrist testimony (1 = present)0.7640.8110.6420.1360.341
    (0.031)*(0.019)*(0.065)(0.821)(0.562)
    Any defense psychiatrist testimony (1 = present1.2231.2561.0911.4381.517
    (0.000)†(0.001)†(0.000)†(0.011)*(0.013)*
    Defendant’s race (1 = black)−0.739−0.847−0.639−0.663−0.876−1.024
    (0.057)(0.075)(0.089)(0.119)(0.056)(0.034)*
    Juror’s race (1 = black)0.2750.9950.3670.8090.7400.938
    (0.620)(0.126)(0.415)(0.114)(0.175)(0.159)
    Victim’s race (1 = black)−0.532−0.383−0.651−0.4690.2420.425
    (0.446)(0.650)(0.300)(0.463)(0.677)(0.563)
    Criminal history (1 = yes)0.3530.3040.411
    (0.240)(0.419)(0.294)
    Crime’s seriousness (1 = least serious; 4 = most serious)0.2720.1030.021
    (0.292)(0.701)(0.940)
    Remorse (1 = least remorseful; 4 = most remorseful)0.115−0.110−0.048
    (0.454)(0.560)(0.797)
    Observations (n)174155155142173155133123
    Prob > F0.0310.0000.0140.0100.0320.0010.0000.001
    • Probabilities are in parentheses.

    • * Significant at p < 0.05;

    • † Significant at p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Question* Regarding Future Dangerousness

    % Repondingn
    Not important4411
    Somewhat important4010
    Very important123
    Most important11
    • * How important was the psychiatric testimony regarding future dangerousness to your assessment of the defendant’s potential future dangerousness?

PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online: 33 (4)
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
Vol. 33, Issue 4
1 Jan 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in recommending The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law site.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Expert Testimony in Capital Sentencing: Juror Responses
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Expert Testimony in Capital Sentencing: Juror Responses
John H. Montgomery, J. Richard Ciccone, Stephen P. Garvey, Theodore Eisenberg
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jan 2005, 33 (4) 509-518;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Expert Testimony in Capital Sentencing: Juror Responses
John H. Montgomery, J. Richard Ciccone, Stephen P. Garvey, Theodore Eisenberg
Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online Jan 2005, 33 (4) 509-518;
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Methods
    • Results
    • Discussion
    • Conclusion
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

  • Adverse Childhood Experiences and Arrest Rates among Individuals with Serious Mental Illnesses
  • Financial Equity in Involuntary Treatment for Substance Use Disorders
  • Criminal Justice Outcomes of Suicide by Cop Survivors
Show more Regular Article

Similar Articles

Site Navigation

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • Ahead of Print
  • Archive
  • Information for Authors
  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Feedback
  • Alerts

Other Resources

  • Academy Website
  • AAPL Meetings
  • AAPL Annual Review Course

Reviewers

  • Peer Reviewers

Other Publications

  • AAPL Practice Guidelines
  • AAPL Newsletter
  • AAPL Ethics Guidelines
  • AAPL Amicus Briefs
  • Landmark Cases

Customer Service

  • Cookie Policy
  • Reprints and Permissions
  • Order Physical Copy

Copyright © 2023 by The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law