Abstract
AbstractThe Supreme Court continues to permit psychiatrists and other mental health professionals to testify regarding capital defendants' propensity to future dangerousness. Virtually all scientific evidence indicates that these predictions are unreliable. However, capital juries are particularly likely to rely heavily on such testimony. The admission of this evidence violates the safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court's own case law demanding that a capital jury's discretion be guided. The Court must consider the reliability of evidence of future dangerousness, deny its admissibility on behalf of the prosecution, but structure a rule that does not infringe on capital defendants' right to present evidence in mitigation that may implicate future dangerousness.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
