Keep your bias to yourself: How deliberating with differently biased others affects mock-jurors' guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation.

This experiment explored how mock-jurors' (N = 648) guilt decisions, perceptions of the defendant, memories, and evidence interpretation varied as a function of jury type and pretrial publicity (PTP); utilizing a 2 (jury type: pure-PTP vs. mixed-PTP) × 3 (PTP: defendant, victim, and irrelevant) factorial design. Mock-juries (N = 126) were composed of jurors exposed to the same type of PTP (pure-PTP; e.g., defendant-PTP) or different types of PTP (mixed-PTP; e.g., half exposed to defendant-PTP and half to irrelevant-PTP). Before deliberations jurors exposed to defendant-PTP were most likely to vote guilty; while those exposed to victim-PTP were least likely. After deliberations, jury type and PTP affected jurors' guilt decisions. Specifically, jurors deliberating on pure-PTP juries had verdict distributions that closely resembled the predeliberation distributions. The verdict distributions of jurors on mixed-PTP juries suggested that jurors were influenced by those they deliberated with. Jurors not exposed to PTP appeared to incorporate bias from PTP-exposed jurors. Only PTP had significant effects on postdeliberation measures of memory and evidence interpretation. Mediation analyses revealed that evidence interpretation and defendant credibility assessments mediated the effect of PTP on guilt ratings. Taken together these findings suggest that during deliberations PTP bias can spread to jurors not previously exposed to PTP. In addition, juries composed of jurors exposed to different PTP slants, as opposed to a single PTP slant, can result in less biased decisions. Finally, deliberating with others who do not share similar biases may have little, if any, impact on biased evidence interpretation or memory errors. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Impact of Criminal Justice Involvement and Housing Outcomes Among Homeless Persons with Co-occurring Disorders.

The relationship between criminal justice involvement and housing among homeless persons with co-occurring disorders was examined. Program participants assisted in moving to stable housing were interviewed at baseline, six months, and discharge. Those who remained homeless at follow-up and discharge had significantly more time in jail in the past month than those who were housed. However, criminal justice involvement was not significantly related to housing status at the six month follow-up or discharge. Findings suggest that housing people with complex behavioral health issues reduces the likelihood of further criminal justice involvement.

Case Management Models in Permanent Supported Housing Programs for People With Complex Behavioral Issues Who Are Homeless.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article is to examine two evidence-based models of case management for people with co-occurring disorders and histories of chronic homelessness and to better understand their roles in permanent supported housing. Critical Time Intervention and Assertive Community Treatment are examined in terms of key elements, how they assist in ending homelessness, as well as the role they play in an individual's recovery from co-occurring disorders. METHODS: Participants in two supported housing programs were interviewed at baseline and 6 months. One program used Critical Time Intervention (n = 144) and the other used Assertive Community Treatment (n = 90). Staff in both programs were interviewed about their experiences and fidelity assessments were conducted for each program. RESULTS: Both programs operated at high levels of fidelity. Despite similar criteria for participation, there were significant differences between groups. Critical Time Intervention participants were older, were more likely to be male, were more likely to be homeless, and reported greater psychiatric symptoms and higher levels of substance use (all p's < .001). Separate outcome analyses suggested that each program was successful in supporting people to transition from homelessness to stable housing; 88.6% of Assertive Community Treatment participants were homeless at baseline, while at 6 months 30% were homeless (p < .001), and 91.3% of those in the Critical Time Intervention were homeless at baseline, while 44.3% were homeless at 6 months (p < .001). Participants in the Critical Time Intervention program also showed significant decreases in alcohol use, drug use, and psychiatric symptoms (all p's < .01). The preliminary results suggest that each case management model is helpful in assisting people with complex behavioral health needs and chronic homelessness to move to stable housing. CONCLUSIONS: Permanent supported housing seems to be an effective way to end homelessness among people with co-occurring disorders. Further research is needed to determine which case management models work most effectively with supported housing to help policy makers and program directors make informed decisions in developing these programs.

From the shadows into the light: How pretrial publicity and deliberation affect mock jurors' decisions, impressions, and memory.

This 2-part study explored how exposure to negative pretrial publicity (Neg-PTP) influences the jury process, as well as possible mechanisms responsible for its biasing effects on decisions. Study Part A explored how PTP and jury deliberations affect juror/jury verdicts, memory, and impressions of the defendant and attorneys. One week before viewing a criminal trial mock-jurors (N = 320 university students) were exposed to Neg-PTP or unrelated crime stories (No-PTP). Two days later deliberating jurors came to a group decision, whereas nondeliberating jurors completed an unrelated task before making an individual decision. Neg-PTP jurors were more likely to vote guilty, make memory errors, and rate the defendant lower in credibility. Deliberation reduced Neg-PTP jurors' memory accuracy and No-PTP jurors' guilty verdicts (leniency bias). Jurors' memory and ratings of the defendant and prosecuting attorney significantly mediated the effect of PTP on guilt ratings. Study Part B content analyzed 30 mock-jury deliberations and explored how PTP influenced deliberations and ultimately jury decisions. Neg-PTP juries were more likely than No-PTP juries to discuss ambiguous trial evidence in a proprosecution manner and less likely to discuss judicial instructions and lack of evidence. All Neg-PTP juries mentioned PTP, after instructed otherwise, and rarely corrected jury members who mentioned PTP. Discussion of ambiguous trial evidence in a proprosecution manner and lack of evidence significantly mediated the effect of PTP on jury-level guilt ratings. Together the findings suggest that judicial admonishments and deliberations may not be sufficient to reduce PTP bias, because of memory errors, biased impressions, and predecisional distortion.

Identifying persons feigning limitations in their competence to proceed in the legal process.

Accurate assessment of the response styles criminal defendants adopt when undergoing evaluations of their competence to proceed with the legal process is critical because some feign limitations in their abilities in an attempt to delay or avoid prosecution. This study examined the utility of the Inventory of Legal Knowledge (ILK) to identify persons motivated to feign competence related limitations. That the ILK has good potential as a screening tool is indicated by findings that the measure (1) has adequate test-retest reliability and (2) classified correctly the large majority of participants in two samples (i.e., college students and psychiatric patients) who completed the measure under "honest" or "fake bad" conditions.