Expert Testimony in Capital Sentencing: Juror Responses

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia (1972), held that the death penalty is constitutional only when applied on an individualized basis. The resultant changes in the laws in death penalty states fostered the involvement of psychiatric and psychologic expert witnesses at the sentencing phase of the trial, to testify on two major issues: (1) the mitigating factor of a defendant’s abnormal mental state and (2) the aggravating factor of a defendant’s potential for future violence. This study was an exploration of the responses of capital jurors to psychiatric/psychologic expert testimony during capital sentencing. The Capital Jury Project is a multi-state research effort designed to improve the understanding of the dynamics of juror decision-making in capital cases. South Carolina data (n = 214) were used to investigate the impact of expert testimony on the mitigating factor of mental illness and the aggravating factor of future dangerousness. Ordered logit regression analyses revealed significant correlations (p \u3c .005) between the presence of a defense psychiatrist or psychologist expert witness during the sentencing phase and jurors’ having the impression that the defendant was mentally disturbed. Similar analyses revealed no significant relationship between the presence of state-introduced psychiatric testimony and jurors’ having the impression that the defendant, if not executed, would be violent in the future. These findings seem to contradict the view that psychiatric testimony on future dangerousness in death penalty cases has a powerful impact on jurors. The jurors in this study were significantly influenced, however, by psychiatric/psychologic testimony in the area of a defendant’s mitigating mental abnormality

Expert Testimony in Capital Sentencing: Juror Responses

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia (1972), held that the death penalty is constitutional only when applied on an individualized basis. The resultant changes in the laws in death penalty states fostered the involvement of psychiatric and psychologic expert witnesses at the sentencing phase of the trial, to testify on two major issues: (1) the mitigating factor of a defendant’s abnormal mental state and (2) the aggravating factor of a defendant’s potential for future violence. This study was an exploration of the responses of capital jurors to psychiatric/psychologic expert testimony during capital sentencing. The Capital Jury Project is a multi-state research effort designed to improve the understanding of the dynamics of juror decision-making in capital cases. South Carolina data (n = 214) were used to investigate the impact of expert testimony on the mitigating factor of mental illness and the aggravating factor of future dangerousness. Ordered logit regression analyses revealed significant correlations (p \u3c .005) between the presence of a defense psychiatrist or psychologist expert witness during the sentencing phase and jurors’ having the impression that the defendant was mentally disturbed. Similar analyses revealed no significant relationship between the presence of state-introduced psychiatric testimony and jurors’ having the impression that the defendant, if not executed, would be violent in the future. These findings seem to contradict the view that psychiatric testimony on future dangerousness in death penalty cases has a powerful impact on jurors. The jurors in this study were significantly influenced, however, by psychiatric/psychologic testimony in the area of a defendant’s mitigating mental abnormality

Expert Testimony in Capital Sentencing: Juror Responses

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia (1972), held that the death penalty is constitutional only when applied on an individualized basis. The resultant changes in the laws in death penalty states fostered the involvement of psychiatric and psychologic expert witnesses at the sentencing phase of the trial, to testify on two major issues: (1) the mitigating factor of a defendant’s abnormal mental state and (2) the aggravating factor of a defendant’s potential for future violence. This study was an exploration of the responses of capital jurors to psychiatric/psychologic expert testimony during capital sentencing. The Capital Jury Project is a multi-state research effort designed to improve the understanding of the dynamics of juror decision-making in capital cases. South Carolina data (n = 214) were used to investigate the impact of expert testimony on the mitigating factor of mental illness and the aggravating factor of future dangerousness. Ordered logit regression analyses revealed significant correlations (p \u3c .005) between the presence of a defense psychiatrist or psychologist expert witness during the sentencing phase and jurors’ having the impression that the defendant was mentally disturbed. Similar analyses revealed no significant relationship between the presence of state-introduced psychiatric testimony and jurors’ having the impression that the defendant, if not executed, would be violent in the future. These findings seem to contradict the view that psychiatric testimony on future dangerousness in death penalty cases has a powerful impact on jurors. The jurors in this study were significantly influenced, however, by psychiatric/psychologic testimony in the area of a defendant’s mitigating mental abnormality

Expert Testimony in Capital Sentencing: Juror Responses

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia (1972), held that the death penalty is constitutional only when applied on an individualized basis. The resultant changes in the laws in death penalty states fostered the involvement of psychiatric and psychologic expert witnesses at the sentencing phase of the trial, to testify on two major issues: (1) the mitigating factor of a defendant’s abnormal mental state and (2) the aggravating factor of a defendant’s potential for future violence. This study was an exploration of the responses of capital jurors to psychiatric/psychologic expert testimony during capital sentencing. The Capital Jury Project is a multi-state research effort designed to improve the understanding of the dynamics of juror decision-making in capital cases. South Carolina data (n = 214) were used to investigate the impact of expert testimony on the mitigating factor of mental illness and the aggravating factor of future dangerousness. Ordered logit regression analyses revealed significant correlations (p \u3c .005) between the presence of a defense psychiatrist or psychologist expert witness during the sentencing phase and jurors’ having the impression that the defendant was mentally disturbed. Similar analyses revealed no significant relationship between the presence of state-introduced psychiatric testimony and jurors’ having the impression that the defendant, if not executed, would be violent in the future. These findings seem to contradict the view that psychiatric testimony on future dangerousness in death penalty cases has a powerful impact on jurors. The jurors in this study were significantly influenced, however, by psychiatric/psychologic testimony in the area of a defendant’s mitigating mental abnormality

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Funder: laura and john arnold foundationBACKGROUND: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). METHODS: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. RESULTS: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

New insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

Characterization of the genetic landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADD) provides a unique opportunity for a better understanding of the associated pathophysiological processes. We performed a two-stage genome-wide association study totaling 111,326 clinically diagnosed/'proxy' AD cases and 677,663 controls. We found 75 risk loci, of which 42 were new at the time of analysis. Pathway enrichment analyses confirmed the involvement of amyloid/tau pathways and highlighted microglia implication. Gene prioritization in the new loci identified 31 genes that were suggestive of new genetically associated processes, including the tumor necrosis factor alpha pathway through the linear ubiquitin chain assembly complex. We also built a new genetic risk score associated with the risk of future AD/dementia or progression from mild cognitive impairment to AD/dementia. The improvement in prediction led to a 1.6- to 1.9-fold increase in AD risk from the lowest to the highest decile, in addition to effects of age and the APOE ε4 allele