In 2019, a potentially groundbreaking delinquency case entered a Georgia juvenile court. A juvenile (“T.B.”) refused to leave a storage closet at a Savannah hotel, and the incident resulted in criminal charges against the youth, including aggravated assault of an officer. The child’s attorneys stated that shortly after the incident, his delusional mental state necessitated involuntary hospitalization. During the adjudication process, the youth’s attorneys submitted a motion for a forensic psychologist to evaluate him in their effort to use an insanity defense. However, Georgia does not permit a juvenile insanity defense. The judge denied the motion, prohibiting the defense’s use of the insanity defense and concurrent introduction of psychological testimony. The defense appealed the decision, and now the Supreme Court of Georgia will consider whether insanity is a viable defense for youth in Georgia.
This case illuminates myriad issues surrounding juveniles’ use of the insanity defense, including whether juveniles should have access to it. Only a few states permit a juvenile insanity defense, which is likely driven by differences between juveniles and adults and often negative public perceptions of the defense, including that people who are not severely mentally ill use it to avoid punishment. In the Georgia case, it appears that at present, both the prosecution and defense believe the juvenile insanity defense should be permitted. This opinion is shared by some experts, including adolescent psychiatrists Jamison Rogers, MD, and Wade Myers, MD, of Rhode Island, who lay out several arguments in support of the juvenile insanity defense. Among them is that “this added vulnerability [relative to adults] further underscores the notion that youths with mental illness deserve equal access to the insanity defense.”
If the juvenile insanity defense is permitted in Georgia, legal officials’ perceptions of insanity—along with forensic psychological testimony—would likely play a pivotal role in these insanity determinations. Up until now, little research has ostensibly examined these issues within the context of juvenile courts and juvenile defendants. Yet empirical data reveal that misperceptions of mental illness are prevalent among the public, and some legal officials likewise have misperceptions about the insanity defense, including that it is frequently used and often successful. Perhaps the mental health experts routinely used in insanity cases can disabuse judges and jurors of such erroneous assumptions, but little is known about what impact this expert testimony may have on final juvenile case dispositions.
A recent study by Daniel Krauss, JD, PhD, of Claremont McKenna College, and colleagues shed some light on this question within the context of adult insanity judgments. These researchers manipulated whether aspects of an expert’s testimony (among other things, whether they were court-appointed or paid by the prosecution or defense) affected mock jurors’ judgments in a case invoking the insanity defense. Although the manipulations did not affect mock jurors’ legal decisions, jurors’ perceptions of the expert’s credibility did affect their verdicts. Also noteworthy is that jurors’ preexisting attitudes toward the insanity defense significantly predicted their judgments.
Such findings should not downplay the importance of expert testimony within insanity cases—especially since this testimony may play a larger role in juvenile cases. Instead, they illuminate the importance of understanding decision-makers’ preexisting attitudes about mental illness and the insanity defense, as well as perceptions of expert testimony.
