230180 PR Conceptual and Empirical Issues associated with Evidence in Law and Medicine (2012S)

Vortragender: Aaron Cicourel and Michael Hanley
Substantive material identified as "evidence" in law and medicine can overlap and also differ. We illustrate the differences by a study of two cases; one from the criminal justice system and one from medicine. The cases share overlapping neurological problems. The first case refers to the normal course of adolescent cognitive "impairment" or "legal incompetence" assumed to be neurological in origin (a cognitive "developmental deficiency") which was alleged to have affected an accused juvenile's school performance and alleged criminal behavior. The client's attorney challenged the prosecution's presumption that the juvenile would be competent to be tried as an adult for an aggravated felony: robbery (stealing a skateboard by use of force or fear) in association with a "criminal street gang". Previous to the alleged criminal offense, a neuropsychologist hired by the school district found significant cognitive impairment. After the commencement of criminal proceedings, two court appointed professional experts agreed on the existence of cognitive impairment as it relates to legal competency to stand trial. A third court appointed professional did not. Overlapping evidential sources are employed to validate and/or challenge the legal and professional assessments of each case. For example, how evidence was presented, ist content, and how the juvenile's neurological and communication problems compared with an adult who was diagnosed with "semantic variant frontotemporal dementia" a difficulty finding appropriate lexical items when speaking and writing. The juvenile does not appear to understand why the court is charged with finding him "competent" or "incompetent" nor the meaning of each concept. The patient, however, is told he is not afflicted with "dementia", but an "impairment" which can interfere with his ability to produce fluent, comprehensible speech, yet capable of producing discourse and managing his daily activities. The juvenile appears to be unaware his alleged "impairment" and its consequences (serious incarceration). The adult was eager to understand his communicational problems and sought the diagnosis.

We will discuss the cases on the basis of verbatim material from the court reporter's transcription and verbatim transcript from the clinic and some video material of the patient at home.

(Veranstaltung in Kooperation mit dem Institut für Rechts- und Kriminalsoziologie)