The first goal of this project is to empirically assess, by using a simulated insanity defense trial with mock-jurors how mock-juror insanity defense verdicts are affected by: a) shifting the burden of proof to the defendants; b) the availability of the "guilty but mentally ill" verdict choice; and, c) narrowing insanity tests or standards. The second goal is to empirically determine (again with mock-jurors) how race of defendant and race of victim influences juror decision-making within the insanity trial domain. In addition, the PI proposes to examine how jurors's attitudes toward: a) "due process of law" versus "crime control"; b) the death penalty; c) the insanity defense itself; and d) the efficacy/believability of expert psychological testimony relate to their insanity defense verdicts. One of the most fundamental questions being asked in regard to the insanity defense is: What are the causally efficacious factors which affect juror determination of a "Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI)" verdict?
