An update and expansion on the role of the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide and Historical Clinical Risk Management-20 in United States case law.

An individual's risk for future violent behavior may be considered in various legal contexts, including civil commitment, criminal sentencing, or suitability for parole. Among the assessment tools forensic evaluators use to assess violence risk are the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide (VRAG; Quinsey, Harris, Rice, & Cormier, ) and the Historical Clinical Risk Managment-20 (HCR-20)/Historical Clinical Risk Management-20, Version 3 (HCR-20 ) (Webster, Douglas, Eaves, & Hart, and Douglas, Hart, Webster, & Belfrage, , respectively). Previous surveys and case law research suggest that these measures are widely used and perceived to be useful in aiding forensic clinicians.

Medication state at the time of the offense: Medication noncompliance, insight and criminal responsibility.

This study used a mixed quantitative-qualitative methodology to examine whether mock jurors considered a defendant's meta-responsibility - specifically, the defendant's medication noncompliance and degree of insight into his/her schizophrenia - when determining the person's criminal responsibility. The degree of expert witness explanation regarding these factors was also varied. Participants (n = 173) were grouped into 30 juries, randomized across five conditions, and shown mock testimony and attorney arguments based on a real not guilty by reason of insanity court case.

Thin slice expert testimony and mock trial deliberations.

This study examined impressions of expert witness testimony in a not guilty by reason of insanity defense on two outcomes: witness's credibility and verdict. Borrowing in part from the "thin slice" methodology, we assessed outcomes in a 2 (deliberating vs. non-deliberating jurors) × 3 (length of videotaped testimony) between-subjects design.