News flash: Epic trial ends with sanity verdict

It took a jury only five hours to decide that Brian David Mitchell does not meet Utah's legal definition of insanity, and to find him guilty of all charges in the 2002 kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart.

The high-profile case teems with issues of import to forensic psychology and psychiatry, including malingering and the boundary between delusions and extreme religious beliefs.

The trial, as in the many past hearings, featured dueling experts. On one side was prominent New York City psychiatrist Michael Welner, who said Mitchell was sane and malingering a mental disorder to escape criminal liability. Defense attorneys criticized both Welner's fees, a whopping $750,000 (no, that's not a typo), and his methods. For example, he had FBI agents conduct about 30 interviews on his behalf, according to an Associated Press report by Jennifer Dobner.

On the other side was psychologist Richart DeMier, who evaluated Mitchell for 45 days at a federal prison in Missouri in 2008 and diagnosed him with paranoid schizophrenia. During his full day of testimony, DeMier was vigorously questioned about the sometimes-muddy distinctions between delusions and extreme religious views, a central issue throughout this case. He testified that the distinction is not an exact science, and that mental illness is not always black and white, according to a report in the Deseret News.

Experts also dueled ferociously at Mitchell's competency hearing last year. At one point during testimony by Jennifer Skeem, a forensic psychologist from California who grew up in Utah, the proceedings "seemed less about issues relating to Mitchell's competency and more about what she believed was 'character assassination' " by Welner, according to a Deseret News report. "I'm not a hired gun who intentionally collaborated with an unethical defense team," Skeem told the court.

Crazy or not, the self-styled prophet maintained his typically bizarre behavior during the reading of the verdict, loudly singing the hymn, "He Died, the Great Redeemer Died."

Judge Kimball’s 149-page competency ruling, which I highly recommended to any of you who do competency work, is HERE.

My previous coverage of this fascinating case, with links to other reports, includes:

• Mitchell to plead insane (July 6, 2010)
• Mitchell labeled as malingerer, ruled competent (March 1, 2010)
• "Legal pointillism": New approach to competency (Dec. 8, 2009)
• Record-breaking fee for competency report? (Dec. 4, 2009)
• Utah court: OK to forcibly medicate accused kidnapper (Dec. 17, 2007)

Graphics credit: Scott Snow, KSL

"Islamophobia" prompting rise in hate crimes?

Chinese animation video seen worldwide

You have heard the hoopla over banning a mosque near "Ground Zero" in New York City. And the buzz about the startling level of American ignorance over President Obama's religion (a Pew poll showed about one in five Americans think he is Muslim). Now, a Chinese animated news video links these macro stories with the stabbing of a New York cab driver, making the case for a rise in anti-Muslim violence in the USA. Michael Enright (pictured at right), a film student, allegedly stabbed the cabbie out of anti-Muslim bias. Enright's journals will undoubtedly be used in court as evidence of the biased motivation necessary for a hate crime conviction. Ironically, given his own actions, he allegedly wrote that Muslims were "filthy murderers without a conscience." For a glimpse at international opinion, this 90-second video clip from Next Media Animation in Taiwan is worth checking out:

Related blog post:

Judge may block hater from misusing courts: First Amendment and fair use doctrine at issue (March 8, 2008)

Can implicit religious bias affect jury verdicts?

Homaidan Al-Turki, a Saudi Arabian citizen pursuing his doctoral degree in Colorado, was on trial in Colorado for assaulting his housekeeper. As the jury was sworn in, one juror indicated he might believe a Muslim would more likely break the law under certain circumstances. Al-Turki's lawyer asked if he could probe further, but the judge said no. During the trial, the prosecutor showed the jury a mannequin dressed in "Muslim women’s clothing." Allusions were made to Osama bin Laden, Ramadan, and 9/11. The jury convicted and Al-Turki was sentenced to 28 years in prison.

Al-Turki blamed his conviction on anti-Muslim sentiment, and the case sparked international controversy. But the conviction was upheld on appeal, and earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

What does psychology have to offer about the potential effect of jurors' religious bias on verdicts, and how implicit cues might activate such bias?

This month's Judicial Notebook, a regular column in the Monitor magazine published by the American Psychological Association, addresses this timely issue. Note authors Marc Pearce and Samantha Schwartz of the University of Nebraska-Lincoln:

Research indicates that information associating Muslims with negative attributes (such as terrorism) can create implicit biases that are difficult to detect with explicit measures… [T]he prosecution’s use of negative associations during a trial might foster an implicit bias against a Muslim defendant.

The full column is online HERE.

Related blog post:

• Prominent expert testifies about implicit bias (April 15, 2008)