404 Forensic Psychology
actions protesting the war in Vietnam. Social psychologists
Jay Schulman and Richard Christie participated in several
highly visible trials, beginning with the trial of several
Catholic priests and nuns, antiwar protesters who became
known as the “Harrisburg 7” (United States v. Ahmad,1973)
and continuing with the group of antiwar protesters known as
the “Gainesville 8” (United States. v. Briggs,1973). In the
Harrisburg 7 trial, the social scientists, assisted by corps of
volunteers, conducted a survey of community members to
find out which demographic variables (including age, educa-
tion, religion, and gender) were associated with favorable at-
titudes toward war protesters. They then rated each prospec-
tive juror on a 1-to-5 scale in terms of favorability. The
consultants also used “information networks” in the commu-
nity, interviewing friends, neighbors, and employers, to
gather more information about prospective jurors. In-court
observations during voir dire provided the remaining infor-
mation. The jury selection techniques based on this informa-
tion were apparently successful, as the defendants were found
not guilty. The researchers also carried out follow-up inter-
views with jurors after the verdict had been reached (Christie,
1976; Schulman, Shaver, Colman, Emrick, & Christie, 1973).
Another high-profile trial that used social scientists for the
defense was the trial of U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell
and former secretary of commerce Maurice Stans (also the
former head of Richard Nixon’s reelection committee) on
charges of conspiracy to impede a Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation of financier Robert L. Vesco in
return for a $200,000 cash contribution to Nixon’s reelection
campaign. The defense was assisted in the selection of jurors
by a public opinion survey, and the defendants were found
not guilty. The survey was originally commissioned to sup-
port a motion for change of venue from New York City.
When that motion was denied, the attorneys realized that,
with some work, the survey findings might provide guidance
in the selection of trial jurors. Additional information was
obtained from interviews with neighbors, friends, and em-
ployers of the potential jurors (Christie, 1976).
Trial consultants are not licensed or certified in any state;
therefore, anyone can proclaim himself or herself a trial con-
sultant (Wrightsman, 2000). In the role of applied researcher,
a trial consultant must follow professional standards for ethi-
cal research, which, according to Wrightsman (2000, p. 31),
have the “form of a list of moral imperatives: 1. Thou shall
not fake data. 2. Thou shall not plagiarize. 3. Thou shall not
make false conclusions on the basis of your data.” But given
the fact that the trial consultant is an entrepreneur as well as a
scientist, certain conflicts may arise. The AP-LS-sponsored
Specialty Guidelinesrepresent one attempt to provide general
guidelines for dealing with such conflicts. One ambiguous
area concerns the sharing of data and ideas. It is a fundamen-
tal principle within the scientific community that empirical
data and scientific ideas are shared among researchers. How-
ever, trial consultants, whether working alone or for an orga-
nization, may guard their ideas closely. For example, one
consulting firm trademarked the term “shadow jury” and
informed other consultants and researchers that they were to
cease using the term “shadow jury” in their own work
(Wrightsman, 2000, p. 32).
While some see the use of trial consultants as an improve-
ment, a way to go beyond relying simply on attorneys’ stereo-
types and prejudices, others see it in a less positive light. For
example, Marcia Clark, lead prosecutor in the O. J. Simpson
criminal trial, asserted: “As far as I’m concerned, they are
creatures of the defense. They charge a lot, so the only people
who can afford them are wealthy defendants in criminal trials
or fat-cat corporations defending against class-action suits”
(M. Clark, 1997, p. 138).CURRENT ISSUES IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGYRecent Trends in Scientific Amicus BriefsAreas Addressed by the BriefsThe past several decades, academic psychologists and psy-
chological organizations, such as the American Psychological
Association (APA), have been increasingly involved in the
submission of “friend of the court” briefs to the courts on
scientific issues. Science-translation briefs were submitted in
cases involving gay rights (Watkins v. United States Army,
1988), “hypnotically-refreshed” testimony (Rock v. Arkansas,
1987), abortion (Thornburgh v. American College of Physi-
cians and Surgeons,1986), jury size (Ballew v. Georgia,
1978), prediction of dangerousness (Barefoot v. Estelle,
1983), treatment of mentally ill individuals (Cleburne Living
Center, Inc.v. City of Cleburne, Texas,1985), and gender
stereotyping (Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins,1989).
InBowers v. Hardwick(1986), a case challenging sodomy
statutes that criminalized certain sexual behaviors, the APA,
in collaboration with the American Public Health Associa-
tion, contributed an amicus brief containing a great deal
of scientific and clinical data indicating that there was no
evidence that homosexuality or method of intercourse is
pathological in and of itself. The brief also noted the possible
harmful psychological effects of deterring such conduct.
Nevertheless, in a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court upheld
the sodomy statutes. The Court held that the Constitution
does not confer a fundamental right upon consenting homo-
sexuals to engage in oral or anal intercourse in private. In