Abstract
- We know little about what constitutes “typical” testimony offered by psychological experts in capital sentencing trials. Experts may address mitigating factors to the jury during the penalty phase, but the mitigators typically offered, as well as the evidence presented to support the relevance of the mitigators, remains poorly understood. A sample of 94 capital trial transcripts were content analyzed. Findings suggest that expert presence was unrelated to sentencing judgments. Analysis of testimony content revealed that testimony concerning childhood abuse, mental illness, and family issues (i.e., a parent in prison or witnessing domestic violence) occurred in over 50% of the cases involving experts and that intelligence tests and personality assessments were the most frequently used assessment tools. The type of mitigating evidence presented (i.e., whether the testimony focused on the individual’s characteristics or the environmental factors that influenced the individual during development) varied considerably across cases. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.