Jury selection and process : precedent impacting jury consultation and research
Admission of expert testimony and the eyewitness
Confidentiality and privileged communication
Insanity and criminal responsibility
Civil commitment and dangerousness
Hypnosis and the polygraph
Sexual orientation and civil rights
Personal injury : court proceedings and assessment of psychological damages
Prisoners' rights to medical and mental health treatment
Alcohol and drug abuse and dependence
Psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder
Criminal psychological profiling
Sex offenders : community notification and predator commitment
Juvenile law and school law
Capital punishment of juveniles
From the eBook - Second edition.
Cover; Half Title Page; Title Page; Copyright; Dedication; About the Authors; Author's Note: Opportunities Gained; Acknowledgments; Contents; Introduction; Part I. Psychological Issues and Involvement in Basic Courtroom Proceedings; 1. Jury Selection and Process: Precedent Impacting Jury Consultation and Research; The Case of the Mitchell-Stans Conspiracy Trial: The Importance of Consistent Jury Selection Procedures; The Case of Batson v. Kentucky (1986): Juror Race in Jury Selection; The Case of Snyder v. Louisiana (2008): Refining Requirements for Race-Neutral Explanations
2. Admission of Expert Testimony and the EyewitnessThe Case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993): The Evolution of Qualifications for the Admissibility of Expert Testimony; The Case of Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999): Clarifying the Applicability of Daubert; The Case of Perry v. New Hampshire (2012): Eyewitness Testimony Goes to the U.S. Supreme Court; Part II. Legal Precedent in Everyday Clinical Practice; 3. Informed Consent; The Case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966): The Importance of Disclosure; The Case of Zinermon v. Burch (1990): The Importance of Capacity
4. Confidentiality and Privileged CommunicationThe Case of In re Lifschutz (1970): Therapist-Patient Privilege and Privilege Waiver; The Case of Jaffee v. Redmond (1996): Broadening Therapist-Client Privilege; 5. Duty to Warn and Protect; The Case of Tarasoff v. the Regents of the University of California (1976): Dangerousness to Others and the Duty to Warn and Protect; The Case of Almonte v. New York Medical College (1994): Duty to Warn and Protect a Nonspecified Victim; The Case of Garner v. Stone (1973): Confidentiality and the Duty Not to Warn and Protect
Part III. Clinical Forensic Evaluation6. Competency; The Case of Dusky v. United States (1959): Defining Due Process Standards in Competency to Stand Trial Cases; The Case of Godinez v. Moran (1993): The Constitutional Basis for Separate Competencies; The Case of Indiana v. Edwards (2008): The Contemporary Importance of Competency Guidelines; 7. Insanity and Criminal Responsibility; The Case of In re M'Naghten (1843): The First Formal Test of Criminal Responsibility; The Case of John Hinckley: Public Outcry Spurring Insanity Defense Reform
The Case of Clark v. Arizona (2006): State Discretion in Adopting Custom Standards and Limiting Expert Testimony on Mental Illness8. Civil Commitment and Dangerousness; The Case of O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975): The Criteria for Involuntary Commitment; The Case of Foucha v. Louisiana (1992): Dangerousness and Mental Illness as Criteria for Indefinite Commitment; 9. Hypnosis and the Polygraph; The Case of the Hillside Strangler: The Veracity of Hypnosis in a Forensic Setting; The Case of Rock v. Arkansas (1987): U.S. Supreme Court Acknowledgment of Hurd Criteria
