BLACK DEEDS IN BLACK ROBES:
Ralph Underwager & Hollida Wakefield
Institute for Psychological Therapies
13200 Cannon City Blvd.
Northfield, Minnesota 55057
507-645-8881; (fax) 5007-645-8883
Law, says the judge as he looks down
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I've told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain it once more
Law is the Law.
Yet law-abiding scholars write:
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times.
Law is the clothes we wear
Law is Good morning and Good night1
Our justice system has evolved from the second half of
the eighteenth century, when there was no notion of a generalized theory of
law, to the belief today that every social problem can be solved by passing
an ever more clear and specific law. Through this process, the role
and responsibility of the judge has grown and changed. We have moved
away from the view of Chief Justice Holmes that "The first requirement of a
sound body of law is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and
demands of the community, whether right or wrong."2
Now the law is understood to be a true, closed logical system determined by
the application of precedent.
We claim to be a nation of laws and not people. This seems to make
everything more fair and less subject to personal whims of those with power.
We trust the law to assure that all of us are treated fairly. We rely
on the judge to tell us what the law is and to make sure that there is a
level playing field for all. We believe that the judge is a wise,
sagacious person who is objective and impartial. Therefore we grant
judges great deference and respect. The judge is the only person in
our society who immediately and without any discussion can put a citizen in
jail for disrespecting the judge.
Americans tend to obey the law when they feel they
have been treated fairly by the justice system, even if they have been found
guilty of breaking some specific law.3
Fairness of the application of the law is the most crucial dimension.
But when fairness disappears, the law works less and less well and across
time may cease to promote cooperative acts.
So long as the written rules and laws produce positive outcomes, we may
continue to experience an overall sense of community and an effective
society. We believe that if we just write the laws in precise and
clear enough language and in enough detail, we will eliminate human error
and corruption. However, at some point there may be unintended
consequences to some of the rules we make. More and more problems
emerge to which we answer with more and more laws and rules. After
all, problem solving, we think, is best done by making rules.
Legislatures pass laws, often with vague and ambiguous language.
Then agencies and bureaucrats write the rules and regulations that will
ensure their enforcement. Because the rule makers are bureaucrats, the
regulations may bear little relationship to the intent of the original law.
The end result is a glut of burdensome and costly requirements, procedures,
rules and regulations that open the door to being charged with endless
violations, mistakes, getting citation after citation, and penalties that
are wildly irrational.
We rely on judges to administer this process fairly
and keep us all in a stable, secure, and progressing society. The
judge is a central, dominant figure in the courtroom.4
Many judges are competent, hard working, and strive for fairness and equity
while honestly applying the law. But the reality is that, far from
being a cadre of wise, honest, fair, and impartial arbiters, some judges are
arrogant, self-serving, incompetent, and biased and dispense injustice
rather than justice, oppression rather than fairness, and stupidity rather
than wisdom. This reality is made all the more frightening by the lack
of any procedure by which judges can be held accountable. There is
little, if any, self correction by the judicial system except in the most
egregious instances where a public or media outcry forces some action.
Research shows there is a systemic error in the justice system in that
higher courts seldom correct the mistakes of lower courts.5
Against the above reality is the expectation of people
to be treated fairly. There has been much research on what is termed
"procedural justice."6 Procedural
justice refers to the fairness of the methods, mechanisms, and processes
used to determine outcomes. Research in procedural justice indicates
that people's concerns with fair procedure is powerful and is independent of
their concern with outcomes. The most basic right people expect has
been termed "voice." This concept means that people believe they have
the right to have a say in how their case is presented and to be listened to
in their relationships with others and with the institutions of the society.
There are several expectations that derive from this.7
The first is interpersonal sensitivity, that is, polite and respectful
treatment. The second is accountability, the expectation that people
will be given explanations and accounts for any actions that have personal
consequences for them. There also is the expectation that the
authority will be neutral, unbiased, honest and principled as well as
benevolent, caring, and trustworthy.
For over 25 years we have related to the contemporary system responding
to allegations of child abuse. Admittedly this may be a distinct area
of the law and not typical of the rest of the system. Nevertheless,
once a week someone tells us that they never knew our justice system could
be so unfair and unjust as it is in their case or in the case of a friend or
family member accused of child abuse. The anger and rage generated is
illustrated by a man who spoke to us in private at a conference. He
claimed that the child abuse system had taken away his children, destroyed
his marriage, and bankrupted him because of a false accusation, and he said
that he could not wait to get to a country with a guerrilla war so that he
could kill Americans.
Recent developments in the use of DNA evidence to show
the innocence of many on death row facing execution as a result of a
wrongful conviction8 make it impossible to
believe that our justice system is as accurate in decision making as it
needs to be. If there can be as many errors in death penalty cases
where it is reasonable to expect the justice system will do the best it can,
how many more errors may there be in non-death penalty felony cases and
misdemeanor trials? At least one estimate from 1989 is that 10% of all
felony convictions are wrongful convictions.9
With the rapid growth of the prison population and the societal choice to
get tough on crime, it is likely that proportion has increased.
We get many letters from persons in prison convicted
of child abuse who assert they are innocent. Based on our experience
and knowledge of relevant science, we find many of them credible in their
claim of innocence. We have asked some of them to give us their
personal judgment as to how many of the persons in their prison convicted of
child abuse are innocent. We base asking them this question on the
famous study by Rosenhan10 in which patients
in the mental wards very quickly understood that Rosenhan's subjects were
not mentally disturbed but were normal. The mental health
professionals never tumbled to this fact. Prisoners may also be able
to make this judgment about others with sexual offense convictions.
Responses from prisons throughout the country have produced estimates from
25% to 90%.
The jury in the O. J. Simpson trial appears to have based its verdict
primarily on their belief that the justice system had not behaved honestly
and fairly. Recently, Timothy McVeigh said that he had bombed the
federal building in Oklahoma City to get revenge for the actions of the
justice system in Waco and Ruby Ridge. At what point the perception of
an unfair justice system may reach critical mass and explode is not yet
evident. But an examination of the justice system and an effort to
strengthen its commitment to fairness and accountability is necessary.
If this is to be done, judges are the central and pivotal participants to
bring about a more reasonable and fair system of justice.
There is research on judges, their behaviors, and the
variables affecting them. We will briefly summarize only a few of the
studies relevant to the performance of the judiciary. A series of
American studies in the '70s and '80s examined the effect of personal
characteristics of judges on the decision-making process. The personal
factors which impact on the decision making of judges include judicial
attitudes, role orientations, social background, and personality, especially
self-esteem. These variables were investigated by a simulation study
using Dutch judges. The outcome is that decisional dimensions
correlated moderately with personal characteristics, especially role
orientation. At least part of the variance is consistently due to the
influence of personal characteristics.11
An example is Judge Easterbrook who serves on the
Seventh Circuit appellate court. He was recently mentioned in a
national news magazine as a possible Bush appointee to the U.S. Supreme
Court should a vacancy occur. In an analysis of a murder case which
Judge Easterbrook ruled on at the appellate level, D'Amato12
maintains that Judge Easterbrook deconstructed facts and "displayed a
curiously casual attitude — an attitude that even demonstrably false things
can be stated as factually accurate in a judicial opinion because the reader
typically would not question the accuracy of what a judge reports as the
facts" (p. 1344).
D'Amato observed that "if a judge desires a case to come out a certain
way, and the judge is adept at legal reasoning and rationalization, the
rules of law do not and cannot force him to decide the case against his own
desire" (pp.1346-1347). He noted that attorneys routinely find
judicial misrepresentation of the facts of cases to make the case come out
the way the judge desires.
He quoted a law professor who stated:
"Frankly, I have had more than enough of judicial
opinions that bear no relationship whatsoever to the cases that have been
filed and argued before the judges. I am talking about judicial
opinions that falsify the facts of cases that have been argued, judicial
opinions that make disingenuous use or omission of material authorities,
judicial opinions that cover up these things with no-publication and
In a series of studies involving appellate court
judges from several states, state trial court judges, and law students, the
outcomes suggest that judicial decisions are affected by priming,
defined as a change in antecedent conditions which is specifically designed
to increase the probability of a particular response being given to a
particular stimulus.14 This finding
suggests that manipulating a judicial response may be accomplished by some
relatively simple procedures. The effect of gender bias on judicial
conduct is documented and has a negative effect on women working in the
courtroom.15 One judge ascribes the
frequent presence of "junk science" in the courtroom to judicial ignorance
of science and misunderstanding the nature and utility of scientific data
and concludes, "The judges have been the center of the problem."16
This issue is also discussed by Chief Justice Rehnquist in his dissent to
the Daubert Supreme Court ruling setting up judges as gatekeepers of
The general rule in the justice system is that
nothing a trial judge sees or hears during the proceedings in a case can
generate a bias or prejudice sufficiently serious to warrant removal.
Jurors, however, are regarded as vulnerable to all sorts of influence and
the rules make efforts to shield them from all risks. This assumption
is falsified by a study by Landsman and Rakos showing that in civil
litigation judges are affected and biased by material that may subsequently
be held inadmissible. Landsman and Rakos conclude, "What can safely be
said is that the civil justice system has come to rely on a behavioral
assumption about judges that deserves far closer scrutiny than it has, as
In addition to susceptibility to bias, judicial lack
of knowledge and ill-founded subjective beliefs may influence judicial
actions and decisions. Litigation involving sexual offenses imposes
upon judges extraordinary pressure by constituents. In addition,
judges are not accurately informed about sexual offenses and sexual
offenders. Bumby and Maddos note that "These deficits in knowledge,
coupled with community misperceptions and influential and often misleading
media portrayals, may adversely influence opinions regarding sentencing,
treatment, and release, thus resulting in reactionary and perhaps
Sentencing decisions are also affected by community values and subjective
beliefs and attitudes of judges. One study reported that overall, for
violent crime, aggravated assault and robbery, sentence length increased
with a circuit's level of political conservatism.20
Judges may be subject to the confirmatory bias.
Meker, Jesilow and Aranda21 observe:
When the evidence conflicts with with judges' attitudes
about the social issue in question, they are likely to give less weight to
such evidence. Conversely, when the evidence is consistent with
their attitudes, they are likely to give it greater weight. The bias
effects found support the notion put forth in 1620 by the 17th-century
philosopher-scientist Frances Bacon. ... "The human understanding when it
has once adopted an opinion draws all things else to support and agree
with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of
instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects and
despises, or else by some distinction sets aside and rejects, in order
that by this great and pernicious predetermination the authority of its
former conclusion may remain inviolate."
The ability of judges to influence and guide the
procedures of the justice system are demonstrated in a study by Lynch
designed to understand and describe the effect of judicial hostility to
trials.22 Lynch notes that judges put
great pressure on attorneys, mainly defense attorneys, to engage in plea
bargaining. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that only 5% to
10% of criminal cases are resolved by way of a jury trial. The rest
are plea bargains, often coerced by the judge. If a plea bargain is
refused, judges routinely punish those who go to trial. The maximum
legal penalty is given to anyone who goes to trial and loses. A system
that compels defense attorneys to pressure clients to accept a guilty plea,
especially when they may, in fact, be innocent, breeds cynicism, learned
helplessness, and a conviction of inequity. Ebbesen and Konnecni also
note that judges tend to be biased in favor of prosecution.23
This research does not permit any easy, comfortable acceptance of the
notion that we are a nation of laws and not people and so have a fair and
accurate justice system. The subjective, personal, individual factors
affecting the behaviors of judges cannot be ignored. Here are some
problematical judicial behaviors which we have directly observed.
In a bench trial in California, while Dr. Underwager was in the witness
box testifying, the judge leaned over toward the witness box, picked up a
phone from under the bench, and proceeded to make a lengthy phone call to
set up a liaison that evening with his lover. It was somewhat
disconcerting to be overhearing one side of a rather sprightly conversation
three feet away while responding to questions under those circumstances.
In a criminal trial in Indiana, again while Dr. Underwager was in the
witness box, the judge was reading a photography magazine and making out an
order blank. He automatically sustained all objections of the
prosecutor and overruled all objections from the defense attorney while
doing this. In a bench trial in Chicago, the judge was knitting a
sweater the entire time evidence was being given, including when Dr.
Underwager was testifying. In a Wisconsin hearing on admissibility of
psychological science the judge slept through the entire afternoon of
testimony and subsequently ruled that testimony regarding the scientific
research on suggestibility and interrogation was inadmissible because it was
not generally accepted in the scientific community.
In Kelly Michael's trial in New Jersey, Judge Harth
regularly took over the questioning of defense witnesses and effectively
acted as a third prosecutor during the presentation of the defense case in
chief. This was partially responsible for the cross examination of Dr.
Underwager taking 13 days. The appellate court observed:
The judge, in the televised-view of the jury, played
ball with the children, held them on his lap and knee at times, whispered
in their ears and had them do the same, and encouraged and complimented
them. ... The judge also unduly interfered with defense counsels'
cross-examination of the children and often took charge of the
questioning, which in many instances was overly suggestive. For all
appearances, the State's witnesses became the judge's witnesses. The
atmosphere became such, after this manner of presentation of testimony
from 19 children, that a jury considering a verdict in favor of the
defendant might feel that it was personally offending the judge. The
required atmosphere of the bench's impartiality was lost in this trial.
We have seen judicial rulings and findings of fact,
including appellate court rulings, in which there are what must be
deliberate choices to ignore contrary testimony, misrepresentations of fact,
false factual statements, or findings of fact that are incomprehensible.
Following a hearing on admissibility of expert testimony, a Florida judge
ruled as a finding of fact that Dr. Underwager could not testify because his
1972 Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of Minnesota was a
theological degree and not a scientific degree. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals held that Jim Peters, a prosecutor, lied about Dr.
Underwager in a TV program but it was hyperbole which everyone recognized
and so there was no damage. A psychologist conducted an evaluation of
a juvenile court system in Florida. One of his conclusions was that a
judge showed the symptoms of an adult attention disorder deficit. He
also observed that a newly appointed judge ruled on cases where she had no
experience and no knowledge of the relevant and applicable law.25
In a sexually violent persons commitment hearing, the
state's psychologist falsely testified that the VRAG (Violence Risk
Assessment Guide) had been withdrawn by its developers from use for
assessment of sexual offenders. In a subsequent hearing Dr. Marnie
Rice, one of the developers of the VRAG, testified that this was not true.
The judge ruled that the psychologist's testimony had been false, but it was
harmless error.26 Research, however,
indicates that illegal statements by a prosecutor, admission of inadmissible
evidence, and other trial errors that appellate court rule to be harmless
error may actually not be harmless in terms of the trial outcome.27
gives examples of judicial misconduct that have attracted public attention
and triggered the involvement of judicial review mechanisms. However,
the judicial review process does not document any official action if a quiet
exit can be engineered. When asked, the director of the Texas
Commission on Judicial Conduct said, "I know we are criticized for letting
them off but what we are supposed to do is minimize the damage." A
Nebraska judge, Richard "Deacon" Jones, gained notoriety for signing court
orders "Snow White" and urinating on the rug in a colleague's office.
Judge Bernard Avelino, in Pennsylvania, protested an unwanted assignment by
disappearing. Florida Judge Steven Shea dealt with attorneys who
disagreed with him by unlocking the desk drawer in which he kept a gun, and
according to some brandishing it at them. Michigan judge James
Scandarito promised to facilitate legal matters for women in exchange for
sexual favors. Judge John Clark, Missouri, had teenage probationers
work on his yard, paint his fence at rental property, and embezzled money
from a youth facility. A New York Judge, Charles D. Assini, assigned
traffic offenders to a driving school he owned and told no one when his
partner, attorney Lawrence Long, had cases before him.
What Psychologists Can Do
One of the aims of science is to correct erroneous assumptions thought to
be common sense. Ill-founded dogmas and myths can be questioned by
factual information and faulty assumptions can be corrected through the
dissemination of scientific knowledge. However, this means relevant
scientific research needs to be done. Sound research-based techniques
can then be developed. There must then be an active effort to inform
those who set policies and determine actions.
We have developed an approach to analyzing a trial transcript that
provides a basis for suspecting that a judge was biased. The research
upon which we base the evaluation of the testimony in examining a trial
transcript meets both the requirements of the earlier Frye test and
the more recent U.S. Supreme Court Daubert/Kumho Tire rulings.
The most salient pattern of behavior that emerges from the trial
transcripts is the judge's response to objections raised by the attorneys
for each side. Objections and the judge's response to them are readily
quantifiable. When an objection is made, the judge either sustains it
or overrules it. If the legal skill of both attorneys is similar,
other things being equal, a normal distribution of judicial responses can be
expected. A disproportionate, skewed distribution may reflect bias
either toward either side. Here is an example:
We were supplied with a trial transcript from a Michigan case where a
father had been convicted of sexual abuse of his daughters. He was
appealing his conviction and one of the grounds for the appeal was an
assertion of judicial bias in favor of the prosecution.
Objections raised by the prosecution and the defense were tabulated into
a 2 x 2 table where the four cells were prosecution objections sustained and
overruled and defense objections sustained and overruled. The
tabulation showed that 185 prosecution objections were sustained and 14 were
overruled. Defense objections were sustained 4 times and overruled 58
times. These results were submitted to a Chi-square statistical
analysis. The Chi-square makes it possible to determine whether an
observed frequency is within or departs from theoretical or empirical
expectations. The Chi-square compares the frequency of occurrence
actually observed with the frequency expected by chance.
Objections (N = 261)
|X2 = 172, p < .001
The probability of <.001 is that assigned by the tables in our statistics
book for a Chi-square of 10.83 which is the lowest probability contained in
the statistical tables. The Chi-square in this case was 172.
This is an outcome that cannot be a chance result. Unless other
factors can be found to account for it, the results of the analysis suggest
an extreme bias by the trial judge in favor of the state. This same
type of data is recognized in the justice system as determinative in showing
racial and/or sexual discrimination, potential bias in juror pools, and
police profiling of minority groups.
The justice system has repeatedly recognized the importance of judicial
behaviors in affecting the fairness of a trial. An example is the
ruling of the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland in Runge v. State
which includes this paragraph:
the State's arguments to the contrary, we agree with appellant. We
must answer the same question that was presented in Spencer, i.e.,
"whether under the totality of the circumstances the judge's behavior was
'so prejudicial as to deprive defendant ... of a fair as opposed to a
perfect trial.'" "... In answering this question, we necessarily
take account of the fact that a trial judge, by virtue of his position,
has tremendous influence over the jury. ... In this case the trial
judge did much more than rule on the State's objection to the pertinent
comment in appellant's opening statement; rather he instructed the jury
that "the State has an obligation to be fair and impartial." This
had the effect of enhancing the position of the State and its role in the
trial. And not only did he not balance that instruction with one
concerning the obligation of defense counsel, but when defense counsel
asked to approach the bench, he stated in what can only be described as a
sarcastic manner, "so what is new?". This statement was made in
front of the jury. Considering the judge's position in the trial and
the fact that just as surely as is appellant's counsel, the State is
undoubtedly an advocate in criminal proceedings, there is little doubt
that both remarks by the court were "likely to be devastating to the
defense and, thus, should not have been made in front of the jury."
While, unlike in Spencer, the court did not directly attack the
defense counsel as having committed misconduct in the conduct of the
defense, his explanation of the state's role, coupled with his sarcastic
remark to defense counsel, a remark which we agree suggested that
appellant's counsel was an obstructionist, was at least as devastating to
the defense as were the remarks in Spencer. We hold
therefore, that, under the totality of the circumstances, appellant was
denied a fair trial. His convictions must be reversed."29
In a formal adjudicative proceeding, the judge's main role is to be the
finder of law and thus to be in charge of the courtroom procedure. The
judge determines when sessions begin and end, rules on motions, points of
order, objections, and admissibility of evidence. The judge gives
instructions to the jury and informs them on points of law and their
responsibilities and conduct, what testimony to use and not use, and how to
apply the law to the facts of the case. These actions, plus the use of
robes, elevated benches, icons and symbols of the authority of the state,
and the ability to jail anyone who shows disrespect endow the judge with
high status and authority. Research demonstrates that high-status
individuals are more influential and elicit increased conformity and
compliance. Therefore, judges are powerful influences in the decisions
made by juries and a biased judge can affect the outcome of a trial.
In our 1988 book, we discussed the concept of "Cheat
Elite." This is corruption in the name of a higher justice, the
conviction of guilty people. A biased and results-oriented judge may
"distort records, pretend to believe lying government witnesses, pervert the
meaning of cases, and ignore arguments made in their courtroom."30
We gave the example of Chief Justice Amdahl of the Minnesota Supreme Court.
He was reprimanded for using his office to extort money from law firms for
his favorite projects. Yet he remained in office. Currently the
New Hampshire Supreme Court is racked by accusations of undue influence,
dishonest assignment of cases, and collusion to achieve desired outcomes.
The key to understanding this behavior by the best and brightest of judges
is the belief that the protection of society is being served by dishonesty,
cheating, and practicing injustice. Here is the most pernicious and
insidious form of judicial mischief.
What the Psychologist Can Do
The first thing that the psychologist can do to address judicial mischief
is to aim at being the best scientist and doing the best science possible.
This is the strength of the Boulder Model for clinical psychology.
Though the Boulder Model may be honored more in the breach of it than the
fulfillment of it, it remains the aspirational goal for the clinician.
To pursue it is the beginning of the psychologist's capacity to reduce the
harm done by biased or incompetent judges.
Well-designed research needs to be done on the role and performance of
judges. This will include research dealing with various other aspects
of the justice system in relation to the behaviors of judges. The
analysis of trial transcripts suggested above may illustrate one process
that can contribute to the goal of reducing judicial bias and increasing the
accuracy of the justice system.
There are a number of assumptions embedded in
jurisprudence that have been falsified by the science of psychology.
Yet the justice system continues to base many of its policies, decisions,
and actions on these falsified concepts. An example of this is the
mistaken assumption that demeanor can be reliably understood and accurately
interpreted by judges, attorneys, and juries. Hence the reliance upon
direct and cross examination of witnesses as a procedure to ascertain truth.
But research indicates that demeanor cannot be used to determine whether a
witness is telling the truth.31
An illustration of a simplified legal concept is that
a person is a reasoning, rule-following being, whose legally relevant
behavior can be understood in terms of beliefs, desires, intentions, and
rational processes.32 Policies and
decisions based on this assumption may be wrong if there is no awareness of
the limits of this simplistic assumption. Psychology has established
that causes of human behavior are more complex, multifaceted, and diverse
than a unitary post hoc explanation is likely to encompass. Decision
theory research demonstrates that the cognitive process in reaching
decisions is filled with heuristics, that is, shortcuts that are a rough way
to make minimal sense out of human experience. The law must be more
fully informed about the scientific facts that are known.
The U.S. Supreme Court Daubert/Kumho Tire
rulings have established the judge as the gatekeeper for the admissibility
of scientific evidence. This responsibility puts the judge in a
powerful position to determine the outcomes of trials. But judges
sometimes use this power to keep out evidence that does, in fact, meet the
Daubert requirements. In United States v. Rouse, et al.,
the federal judge ruled that testimony on the suggestibility of children did
not meet the Daubert requirements. He read from the 1993 Ceci
and Bruck Psychological Bulletin article33 —
which was intended to demonstrate what was admissible as science — portions
of the literature review in the article to support his claim there was not
general acceptance in the scientific community concerning the suggestibility
of child witnesses. The result was the conviction of five Native
Americans charged with sexually abusing several children in their family.
This conviction was originally overturned on appeal
by the Eighth Circuit, who ruled that the trial court improperly applied
Daubert to exclude the proposed testimony. But, following the
state's petition for a rehearing, the Eighth Circuit reversed their earlier
ruling and upheld the convictions in a split decision.34
They now stated that the exclusion of expert testimony on suggestive
interviewing practices was harmless error. (In his dissent, Circuit
Judge McMillian stated, "Depriving the jury of the questioned evidence
eroded the strength of the defense and, therefore, did not constitute
The children are now older and are saying that the
FBI coerced them, the prosecutor threatened them, and their uncles never
abused them. Further appeals have been refused and the men, whom we
believe are most likely innocent, remain in federal prisons after seven
years. This kind of judicial mischief is what psychologists must
attend to in helping the judiciary to understand what science is and what
the gatekeeping power is.35
The selection of judges by political elections has
been aggressively criticized with appointment of judges being touted as a
better way to decide who gets to be a judge. Yet research suggests
that popular elections may be the best way to control the feared
arbitrariness and bias of judges.36
But, either way, judges may not know enough to properly determine what is
science and what is not. This has been understood for many years.
Proposals to remedy the lack of judicial competency have been made but none
have been implemented or even tested.37
Simplistic and erroneous assumptions need to be operationalized and
described and studied by psychologists. Then the courts, scholars of
jurisprudence, and attorneys can learn they cannot properly be used as a
basis for determinations. Psychologists appear to have been reticent
in addressing the justice system and the legal profession. But it is
our responsibility to become more assertive in integrating the outcomes of
our science and the body of jurisprudence. The research suggests two
Since judges and attorneys read law journals,
psychologists could seek publication in journals indexed in the Index of
Legal Periodicals.38 The difficulty is
that publication even in prestigious legal periodicals is unlikely to be
rewarded in a research-oriented graduate psychology program.
Psychologists could also pursue workshops and continuing legal education
presentations, where they also have the opportunity to meet and talk with
judges and attorneys. It may well be, based on what is known about how
professionals acquire new knowledge, that talking to a judge during the
social hour or over dinner will do more to disseminate information from our
science than the formal presentations and publications. It may be that
associations such as the American College of Forensic Psychology ought to
prepare and put on workshops and seminars for judges.
There is little accountability for judges. The only institutional
structure that provides minimal accountability for judges is the
jurisdictional judicial review board or committee. The actual
structure and process for review of judicial behaviors varies from state to
state. Psychologists ought be familiar with the relevant procedures
and encourage and assist persons who can show that a problematical judicial
behavior has affected them. Expert witnesses also may make complaints
to a judicial review panel if they have been affected by questionable
judicial behaviors. Perhaps complaints made in ambiguous situations
will result in greater clarity and more understanding of unacceptable
behaviors, even if a complaint is not upheld.
An expert who pursues complaints against judges may
believe there is some danger in evoking the ire of judges. If so, that
may be a price to be paid for pursuit of justice and civic responsibility.
It is no different than the risk any clinician takes when they sit down in
the witness stand or close the door to the therapy setting.39
Steven Ceci notes that, as a scientist, there is no virtue in staying in the
middle of the road when the data are on one side or the other.40
We have decided to address accountability for judges by producing a
website titled Black Deeds. The address will be
www.blackdeeds.com. Our plan
is to make it possible for any person who can document an instance of
judicial behavior that they believe is unfair and improper to put their side
on the internet for anyone in the world to see. We will have a review
process to assure there is sufficient supporting documentation to avoid
irresponsible or ill-founded attacks on judges by disgruntled litigants.
The judges will be named and a summary description of their problematical
behavior given. The documentation will be maintained in a separate
We hope that this will accomplish two things. First, it will give
an opportunity for those who believe they have been victimized by judicial
mischief to have their say. This can be the voice that the research
shows is basic to American citizens' sense of fairness and justice.
Second, it will identify judges with a pattern of mischievous behavior and
may permit some, at least, to improve their judicial performance.
||Auden, W. H. (1966), Law Like Love, Collected Shorter
Poems, 1927-1957. New York: Random House.
||Holmes, Jr. O. W. (1965). M. Howe, Ed. The Common Law,
p. 36. [Back]
||Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey The Law (). New
||Arce, R., Farina, F., Vila, C., & Real, S. (1996).
Empirical assessment of the escabinato jury system. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2(3), 175-183. [Back]
||Huff, C. R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1996).
Convicted But Innocent: Wrongful Conviction and Public Policy
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
||Miller, D. T. (2001). Disrespect and the experience of
injustice. In Fiske, Schachter, & Zahn-Walker, (2001) Annual Review of
Psychology, 52. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews. pp.527-554.
Observer (1997, September). Misconceptions about why
people obey laws and accept judicial decisions. Author, pp.12-13, 46.
||Scheck, B., Neufeld, P., & Dwyer, J. (2000). Actual
Innocence: Five Days to Execution and Other Dispatches From the Wrongly
Convicted ()(). New York: Doubleday.
||McCloskey, J. (1989, December). Convicting the innocent.
Voice For The Defense, pp. 20-25.
||Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places.
Science, 179, 250-258.
||Van Koppen, P. J. ,& Kate, J. T. (1984). Individual
differences in judicial behavior: Personal characteristics and private
law decision-making. Law & Society Review, 18(2), 225-247.
||D'Amato, A. (1990). The ultimate injustice: When a court
misstates the facts. Cardozo Law Review, 11, 1313-1347.
||Ibid, p. 1345, quoting Professor Monroe Feedman,
Speech to the Seventh Annual Judicial Conference of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on 5/24/89.
||Heuer, L., Penrod, S., & Saks, M. (Undated). Judicial
decisionmaking in cases regarding the prediction of criminality: A test
of a priming approach to procedural fairness. Unpublished
||Riger, S., Foster-Fishman, P., Nelson-Kuna, J., &
Curran, B. (1995). Gender bias in courtroom dynamics. Law and Human Behavior, 19(5), 465-480. [Back]
||Hedderman, C. (1994). Decision-making in court:
Observing the sentencing of men and women. Psychology, Crime & Law,
||Gless, A. G. (1995). Some Post-Daubert trial
tribulations of a simple country judge: Behavioral science evidence in
trial courts. Behavioral Sciences
the Law, 13(2), 261-291, on
||Daubert v. Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 113 S.Ct.
2786 (1993). [Back]
||Landsman, S., & Rakos, R. F. (1994). A preliminary
inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and
jurors in civil litigation. Behavioral Sciences
the Law, 12(2),
113-126, on p.126. [Back]
||Bumby, K. M., & Maddox, M. C. (1999). Judges' knowledge
about sexual offenders, difficulties presiding over sexual offense
cases, and opinions on sentencing, treatment, and legislation.
Sexual Abuse: A Journal of
Research and Treatment, 11(4), 305-315, on p.
||Huang, W. S. W., Finn, M. A., Ruback, R. B., & Friedmann,
R. R. (1996). Individual and contextual influences on sentence lengths:
Examining political conservatism. The Prison Journal, 76(4),
||Meeker, J. W., Jesilow, P., & Aranda, 1. (1992). Bias in
sentencing: A preliminary analysis of community sentences. Behavioral Sciences
the Law, 10(2), 197-206.
||Lovegrove, A. (1999). Theoretical and methodological
issues in the psychological study of judicial sentencing. Psychology, Crime & Law,
||Redding, R. E., & Repucci, N. D. (1999). Effects of
lawyers' socio-political attitudes on their judgments of social science
in legal decision making. Law and Human Behavior,
on p. 51. [Back]
||Lynch, D. R. (1999). Perceived judicial hostility to
criminal trials: Effects on public defenders in general and on their
relationships with clients and prosecutors in particular. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 26(2), 217-234.
||Ebbesen, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1975). Decision making
and information integration in the courts: The setting of bail. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 32(5), 805-821.
||New Jersey v Michaels. 625 A.2d 489 (N.J.Super.A.D.
1993), p. 508. [Back]
||Personal Communication, March, 2001.
||The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure states: (a)
Harmless error. Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does
not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.
||Platania, J., Moran, G., & Cutler, B. (1994, July).
Prosecution misconduct during the penalty phase of capital trials:
Harmless error? The Champion, pp.19-22.
||Kassin. S. M., & Sukel, H. (1997). Coerced confessions
and the jury: An experimental test of the "harmless error" rule. Law and Human Behavior,
||Cox, G. D. (1999, May 3). Judge's behaving badly
(again). The National Law Journal, p. A01.
||Runge v. State, No. 527, September term, 1988
78Md. App. 23: 552 A.2d 560, 1989, Md. App. LEXIS 28.
||Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. (1988). Accusations
of Child Sexual Abuse
()(). Springfield, IL: CC Thomas, p. 127.
||Ekman, P., & O'Sullivan, M. (1991). Who can catch a
liar? American Psychologist,
||Alcock, I. E. (1996). Training, experience, and the
detection of lying. Legal Medical Quarterly, 20, 20-23.
||Ekman, P., O'Sullivan. M., & Frank, M. 0. (1999). A few
can catch a liar. Psychological Science, 10(3), 263-266.
||Kassin, S. M., & Fong, C. T. (1999). "I'm innocent!":
Effects of training on judgments of truth and deception in the
interrogation room. Law and Human Behavior,
||Morse, S. J. (1999). Craziness and criminal
responsibility. Behavioral Sciences
the Law, 17, 147-164.
||Ceci, S. I., & Bruck, M. (1993). The suggestibility of
the child witness: A historical review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin,
||United States vs. Rouse et al. United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth circuit, No. 95-1559, 95-1556, 95-1558,
95-1559. Filed April 11, 1997.
||Mark, M. M. (1999). Social science evidence in the
courtroom? Daubert and beyond? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
||Shuman, D. W., & Champagne, A. (1997). Removing the
people from the legal process: The rhetoric and research on judicial
selection and juries. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,
||Wesley, J. W. (1984). Scientific evidence and the
question of judicial capacity. William
& Mary Law
||Grisso, T., & Melton, G. B. (1987). Getting child
development research to legal practitioners: Which way to the trenches?
In G. B. Melton (Ed.), Reforming the Law: Impact of Child Development
() (pp. 146-176). New York: Guilford Press.
||Hafemeister, T. L., & Melton, G. B. (1987). The impact
of social science research on the judiciary. In G. B. Melton (Ed.),
Reforming the Law: Impact of Child Development Research
() (pp. 27-59).
New York: Guilford Press.
||Miller, R. (1985). The harassment of forensic
psychiatrists outside of court. Bulletin of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,
||Truscott, D., Evans, J., & Mansell, S. (1995).
Outpatient psychotherapy with dangerous clients: A model for clinical
decision making. Professional Psychology: Research and
||Corder, B. F., & Whiteside, R. (1996). A survey of
psychologists' safety issues and concerns. American Journal of
Forensic Psychology, 14(3), 65-72.
||Brown, G. P., Dubin, W. R., Lion, J. R., & Garry, L. J.
(1996). Threats against clinicians: A preliminary descriptive
classification. Bulletin of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law,
||Ceci, S. I. (1994). Cognitive and social factors in
children's testimony. In B. D. Sales, & G. R. VandenBos (Eds.),
Psychology in Litigation and Legislation (pp. 11-54). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.