Naming as doing: Identities, positioning, and ideologies in capital trials

Adopting a socio-pragmatic view on linguistic choices, this study aims to show how proper names come to function as an ideologically-significant resource for identity construction, impression management, and the negotiation of meaning-making. Drawing upon twelve opening addresses from the penalty phase of capital trials, the research identifies the forms, functions and frequencies of the naming choices that the prosecution and defense use to reference the defendants and victims. The findings reveal characteristic patterns in the two sides’ speeches both in terms of the naming choices and purposes for which such choices are (not) used. It is argued that, despite the defense’s attempts to neutralize the damaging effects, this value-laden practice potentially construes distance and exaggerates differences between the person on trial and the victims, and shapes the relationship between the defendant and jury in such a way that hinders empathy and understanding, thereby becoming one of the aggravating factors itself.

Trends in 30- and 90-Day Readmission Rates for Heart Failure

Background: The impact of hospital readmission reduction program (HRRP) on heart failure (HF) outcomes has been debated. Limited data exist regarding trends of HF readmission rates beyond 30 days from all-payer sources. The aim of this study was to investigate temporal trends of 30- and 90-day HF readmissions rates from 2010 to 2017 in patients from all-payer sources. Methods: The National Readmission Database was utilized to identify HF hospitalizations between 2010 and 2017. In the primary analysis, a linear trend in 30-day and 90-day readmissions from 2010 to 2017 was assessed. While in the secondary analysis, a change in aggregated 30- and 90-day all-cause and HF-specific readmissions pre-HRRP penalty phase (2010–2012) and post-HRRP penalties (2013–2017) was compared. Subgroup analyses were performed based on (1) Medicare versus non-Medicare insurance, (2) low versus high HF volume, and (3) HF with reduced versus preserved ejection fraction (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction). Multiple logistic and adjusted linear regression analyses were performed for annual trends. Results: A total of 6 669 313 index HF hospitalizations for 30-day, and 5 077 949 index HF hospitalizations for 90-day readmission, were included. Of these, 1 213 402 (18.2%) encounters had a readmission within 30 days, and 1 585 445 (31.2%) encounters had a readmission within 90 days. Between 2010 and 2017, both 30 and 90 days adjusted HF-specific and all-cause readmissions increased (8.1% to 8.7%, P trend 0.04, and 18.3% to 19.9%, P trend <0.001 for 30-day and 14.8% to 16.0% and 30.9% to 34.6% for 90-day, P trend <0.001 for both, respectively). Readmission rates were higher during the post-HRRP penalty period compared with pre-HRRP penalty phase (all-cause readmission 30 days: 18.6% versus 17.5%, P <0.001, all-cause readmission 90 days: 32.0% versus 29.9%, P <0.001) across all subgroups except among the low-volume hospitals. Conclusions: The rates of adjusted HF-specific and all-cause 30- and 90-day readmissions have increased from 2010 to 2017. Readmissions rates were higher during the HRRP phase across all subgroups except the low-volume hospitals.

The Impact of Angry Versus Sad Victim Impact Statements on Mock Jurors’ Sentencing Decisions in a Capital Trial

The present study tested the effects of angry and sad victim impact statements (VIS) on jury eligible participants’ decisions. Death qualified participants ( N = 581) watched the penalty phase of a capital trial that varied the presence and emotional content of the VIS (angry, sad, or no VIS) along with the strength of mitigating evidence (weak or strong). Results revealed that Angry VIS led to an increase in death sentences, whereas Sad VIS did not. Furthermore, participants who reported becoming angry during the trial were more likely to render a death sentence, but participants who became sad during the trial were not. No interaction was found between VIS and strength of mitigating evidence, but participants exposed to the angry VIS did rate the mitigating evidence as less important to their decisions. The results indicate that VIS are not inherently biasing, nor are all emotions equally impactful on sentencing decisions.

Emotion, Authority, and Death: (Raced) Negotiations in Mock Capital Jury Deliberations

This article explores the role of emotion in the capital penalty‐phase jury deliberations process. It is based on the qualitative analysis of data from ninety video‐recorded four to seven person simulated jury deliberations that examined the influence of race on death sentencing outcomes. The analysis explores when and how emotions are expressed, integrated into the jury's sentencing process, and deployed in penalty‐phase decision making. The findings offer critical new insights into the role that emotion plays in influencing these legal judgments by revealing how jurors strategically and explicitly employ emotion in the course of deliberation, both to support their own positions and neutralize or rebut the opposing positions of others. The findings also shed light on the various ways that white male capital jurors utilize a panoply of powerful emotion‐based tactics to sway others to their position in a manner that often contributes to racially biased outcomes.

Conflict in the Jury Room

A number of studies have shown how participants work to accomplish their goals in ways that minimize the possibility of acrimonious conflict. And yet acrimonious conflict does occur. This raises the issue of what circumstances and discursive moves engender acrimonious interactions and what circumstances and discursive moves avert them. We address this issue through the analysis of segments of a jury deliberation in the penalty phase of a murder trial. We followed the lead of writers who have tied the outbreak of an acrimonious interaction to the launching of a complaint that exposes a personal flaw in the target. We examine three cases where one juror made such a complaint about another. In two of those cases, an acrimonious interaction did not ensue, in the third it did. In comparing these cases, we found that much depends on whether the complainant’s wording and sequential placement of the complaint are mitigating or inflammatory, and much depends on whether the target juror resists the complaint in ways that engender acrimony or concedes and avoids engendering it.