Running Header: AFFLUENZA 1

Affluenza: The Study of How and Why Socioeconomic Status Affects Outcomes within the

Courtroom

Willson Tuck

First Colonial High School

Legal Studies Academy

AFFLUENZA
Tuck 2
Abstract

This paper is an overview of how and why socioeconomic status affects the outcome of court

decisions. The author starts by explaining the definition of Affluenza. Then, the author will

investigate different cases which outline why socioeconomic status is currently affecting

decisions. Next, the author shows factors which influence these very conditions: public

defenders, credibility, and race.

.
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 3

The Study of How and Why Socioeconomic Status Affects Outcomes within the Courtroom

Overview

The court room in the American justice system is blind, meaning that decisions and

rulings are supposed to be impartial and objective, but this paper will highlight defendants who

are economically stable have the ability to elude punishment. Affluenza : a psychological

malaise supposedly affecting wealthy young people, symptoms of which include a lack of

motivation, feelings of guilt, and a sense of isolation (Wilson, 2010). The overarching topic is

how bias exists in the courtroom and those getting off of heinous crimes because of economic

standing. Specific topics will delve into why it's a problem and why it continues to happen

because of complicated factors. In the American justice system, wealthy defendants tend to

receive lighter sentences because they have more opportunities afforded to them.

Court Cases and Articles

Examples from court is the best way to show socioeconomic disparity and how it affects

the credibility of the defendant. The cases highlighted have demonstrated two different

defendants. One has used the legal system to the fullest extent to evade possible repercussions of

the law. The other, has had to fight for the opportunities given to the first. The difference

between the two: defendant number one is more socioeconomically stable than defendant two.

These cases will focus on the inequality amongst the two.

AFFLUENZA
Tuck 4
The problem, ultimately, is not to punish the defendant more for being economically

stable, but to make the process fair for both the wealthy and poor defendant to have an equal

trial.

The People of the State of California vs. Brock Allen Turner

Brock Turner is a 19 year old, former Stanford swimmer, and on January 18, 2015, he

sexually penetrated an intoxicated and unconscious 22-year-old woman, name undisposed, with

his fingers (People v. Turner). Eyewitnesses apprehended Brock Turner in the act as he sexually

assaulted an unconscious woman behind a dumpster. After being apprehended, Turner received

three counts of felony sexual assault from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. A jury agreed

and Turner was found guilty of multiple felony rape charges (King, 2016). The judge presiding

over this case is Judge Aaron Persky, who acquired a bachelor's degree from Stanford University

and a J.D. from the UC Berkeley School of Law, Boalt Hall ("Aaron Persky ," 2016). As a

Stanford graduate himself, Judge Persky seemed to see himself in the fellow athlete, and

publically stated a [long term] prison sentence would have a severe impact on him (King,

2016). This is what makes the case of Brock Turner even more infuriating; this decision sets a

precedent that socioeconomic class influences court decisions. Although it may be unintentional,

class-ism and socioeconomic status is a major factor when it comes to determining the outcome

in court (Smith, 2016). After serving a mere three months in jail, Turner has returned to his

hometown of Dayton Ohio. He must register every 90 days in the sex offender registry of Ohio
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 5
and complete three years of probation. He must attend a sex offender management program for

at least one year or as long as three (Grinberg & Shoichet, 2016).

Grounds for Recusal

One of the key principles of what makes the American justice system unique is the ability

for a judge presiding over a case to be fair and impartial. The probability of a judge recusing

themselves from the courtroom is rare, and only in these cases would they verbalize enough bias

against a party as for counsel for a motion to recuse and successfully make a conviction

(Judicialrecusal.com Staff, 2016). Circumstances for a judge to recuse themselves or grounds for

recusal include: bias/prejudice against a party/case, personal knowledge of the case or facts,

personal relationship to the other party or attorney, economic tie to case through family or other,

and previous rulings, comments or conduct towards the case (Judicialrecusal.com Staff, 2016)

(Goodman, 2015). Title 28 U.S.C. 455 is the primary federal judicial statute used that calls

for a federal judge to be disqualified not only when he is biased against a party, but whenever a

reasonable, disinterested observed would think he might be ("28 U.S. Code 455 -

Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge," 1911). As for Judge Aaron Persky,

being a Stanford Graduate and a student athlete is grounds enough for recusal. Neil Goodman

has over 35 years of experience as a civil litigator and is also a Certified Civil Mediator. Mr.

Goodman explained that Judge Persky had the opportunity to recuse himself because [i]f a

judge is biased or prejudiced for or against a party or attorney, he cannot be fair and impartial in

deciding the case (Judicialrecusal.com Staff, 2016).

The Case of Ethan Couch

AFFLUENZA
Tuck 6
On June 15, 2015, 16-year-old Ethan Allen Couch from Burleson, Texas, was driving

with seven other passengers with him in his truck shortly after midnight. Investigation showed

Couch was traveling 30 miles per hour over the legal speed limit and had a blood alcohol content

of 0.24, three times over the legal limit. The Tarrant County Criminal District Attorneys Office

formally charged Couch with four counts of intoxication, manslaughter, and two counts of

intoxicated assault on Wednesday. This accident left four dead and several others injured

(Smith, 2013). The term, Affluenza was not officially coined until psychologist G. Dick

Miller explained to the court that Couch did not possess the ability to tie his actions to possible

consequences because of his upbringing. (Gardner, 2016). Based off of this expert opinion,

Couchs lawyers successfully argued he was intellectually 18 but had an emotional age of 12.

Couch was essentially too rich for punishment (Smith I, 2016).

Despite the fact that Ethan Couch had been assigned to house arrest after posting bail in

December of 2015, he and his mother fled to Mexico after violation of his probation through a

video on Twitter involving alcohol. A warrant for his arrest was issued, and Ethan Couch and

his mother was apprehended in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. In January, 2016, his first hearing was

heard to determine if Couchs case was to be transferred to an adult court and his probation

would continue through 2024. The hearing resulted in an adult court having jurisdiction over

Couchs probation violation hearing, which resulted in Couch being sentenced to 720 days in jail

(Gardner, 2016).

This case is monumental in the understanding of why socioeconomic status affects the

courtroom because it is the birth of the term Affluenza. Ethan Couch was not taught that the

rules and laws we all follow do not apply to him; however, he was brought up in an entitled
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 7
environment which does not foster hardship or tangible consequences for actions. Oxford

Dictionary defines entitlement as the belief that one is inherently deserving of privileges or

special treatment ("Entitlement," n.d.). If you view the entitled as a selective group, Ethan

Couch is seen as a figurehead in by using the affluenza defense, and he came to embody

entitlement as a being a part of this social group. The precedent and social influence set by this

case should be entitlement has no place and does not exist in the eyes of the law.

Gideon v. Wainwright

Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering in Florida (1963), which

under law, means this is a felony. When Gideon appeared in court, he did not have counsel and

asked the court to appoint him one as he could not afford it. The judge denied Gideons request

because the court only appoints counsel to poor defendants of capital crimes (Gideon v.

Wainwright 372 US 335).

While at trial, with an eighth grade education, Gideon represented himself. He gave an

opening statement, addressed witnesses who testified against him, brought up his own witnesses.

Despite his attempt, he was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment. Gideon wrote to the Florida

Supreme Court for a writ of Habeas corpus, but they denied his petition. Gideon then wrote to

the Supreme Court, and the court agreed to hear his case. They were looking if the Sixth

Amendment rights to counsel apply to defendants on the state court level (Gideon v. Wainwright

372 US 335).

The court overturned the previous ruling of Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, which ruled that

the refusal to withhold an appointment of counsel to a defendant not under trial for capital cases

did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. In the new ruling, the court held
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 8
that the Sixth Amendments guarantee to counsel is a fundamental constitutional right (Gideon v.

Wainwright 372 US 335). This case is significant because it gives the inalienable right to counsel

to those who cannot afford it.

United States v. Kras

This case began in the 1970s when Mr. Kras asked the Supreme court to waive his

bankruptcy court filing of $50 because he argued that requiring him to pay it as a condition to

receiving a discharge denied him due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment

(United States v. Kras).

Mr. Kras had lost his job at a life insurance company after the premiums he had collected

had been stolen from his house. His wife left her job after becoming pregnant and to care after

the child, she was forced to care for her ill son with cystic fibrosis. The Supreme Court denied

Mr. Krass request waiver by saying it did not violate the US Constitution. In the Majority

opinion, written by Justice Blackmun, noted that ...the filing fees, when paid in weekly $1.94

installments, represented a sum less than the price of a movie and a little more than the cost of a

pack or two of cigarettes (United States v. Kras).

In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall declared the court had a grossly misunderstanding,

of the lives of poor people. Justice Marshall explained that the majority of the court had

grown up in a wealthy background, so it may be easy to think that the payment of less than $2 is

no burden, but in fact this is the difference in survival poor people face. [I]t is disgraceful for an

interpretation of the Constitution to be premised upon unfounded assumptions about how people

live (United States v. Kras). In concurrence with Justice Marshall, this case alone shows how

detached upper-class lawmakers can be, and in turn, its citizens. The majority ruling by Justice
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 9
Blackmun undoubtedly outlines the root of affluenza: wealthy, upper-class not understanding the

common man. Instead of understanding the Golden Rule, do onto others as you would have

them do unto you, twenty-first century upper-class citizens in the United States have come to

believe to view this rule intrinsically: We have the gold, and we do unto you (Gardner, 2016).

Disproportionate Sentencing Based on Socioeconomic Status

The justice system in the United States is renowned around the world for freedom and

equality, basic inalienable rights we expect, but many countries around the world would not

agree. Here, women can vote, hold property, and/or you may vote for who you may choose.

These rights are protected by our Constitution and The Bill of Rights outlining how and why we

are free. This is what makes the United States judicial system fair and equal. It is because of

unalienable rights we, as citizens, all agree on is what makes a society function democratically.

This same system allow for outliers, as any system would. There are the cases where

some may not be considered fairly under the same law that would convict another.

Socioeconomic status and the ability to influence the outcome of judgement within a courtroom

is one factor.

Public Defenders

A study published in the University of Chicago Law Review in 2007 found that a

competent and experienced attorney makes a significant difference for defendants. Authors

David Abrams and Alber H. Yoon wrote, Drawing a good attorney in the random assignment

process can save a defendant several months of incarceration, on average (Harvard Kennedy
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 10
School, 2015). In an interview with Cal Bain, a public defender in Virginia Beach, he explained,

and shed light on what exactly a public defender goes through. He received his bachelors in

Psychology at the University of Virginia and his J.D. at William and Mary. Mr. Bain said he

takes about 350 cases a year, but 20 years ago, it was close to double. He stated in his career 26

years, and he recalls being over-worked with long weekends and late nights, but there is more of

a limit on caseload now. He said he could resolve misdemeanors quickly, possibly knocking out

ten or more a day. Not all cases are the same, but many run in the same tune, therefore fairly

similar. Therefore gathering the information for multiple cases was like gathering the same type

of fruit. Murder and rape cases take more time, a year or two was his estimate. His clients would

ask for him to get them out faster, but he would tell them that he would not go to trial until he is

ready. Public defense is not a lucrative career, so I asked him what it takes to win trials. He said

ultimately, it comes down to the seriousness of the crime, the experience of the lawyer and the

amount of money the client has at disposal to be able to throw into the case. Mr. Bain said if he

had one million dollars to file motions and provide more expert witnesses, there is a possibility

that he would win more cases because they would be overwhelm the other side (C. T. Bain,

Personal communication, November 21, 2016).

First, Mr. Bain was verbally passionate about the quality of public defenders. Not a direct

quote, but he said the Senate for State Courts did a study pertaining the success rates between

public defenders, retained counsel and court appointed attorney. The study found no difference

between the public defenders and court appointed attorney. Mr. Bain said his biggest advantage

in the court was his built up rapport with the Judge in the room. He can tell what each one ticks

over and how they might rule (C. T. Bain, Personal communication, November 21, 2016).
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 11
The author asked him what might help a more socioeconomic defendant get off of a

charge compared to one which is not, is the connection between money and the ability to afford

an expert witness. In public hearing, the court pays for experts. Mr. Bain would file a motion for

one and the chance they receive the witness is about 50/50. If you can afford one, none of that is

a concern. One situation in particular is eyewitness identification experts are not cheap, and the

court rarely approves one. Mr. Bain then talked about police and public relations. He said that

even if it comes out of someone in a blue uniform, it still might not be true. This is where the

eyewitness identification experts would be helpful to his defendants in some of those situations

because it is hard to disprove a police officer's credibility (C. T. Bain, Personal communication,

November 21, 2016).

Cal Bain started out in juvie court, which is a closed courtroom. He said he had to learn

by trial and error many times. This was shocking to me because you could have a young, young

attorney with no experience trying to get you out of a crime. Mr. Bain said at the same time, you

may have a daddys son at a well-established law firm, young and with no experience and could

have a similar outcomes. Being a public defender, he laughed and said there is no money in it,

but its a good feeling work. One thing he is happy about: no threats involved (C. T. Bain,

Personal communication, November 21, 2016).

Representation plays an inappropriate, but crucial role in sentencing. The vast majority of

the people who are sentenced to death and executed in the United States come from a

background of poverty (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016). The Supreme Court (1972)

commented on affluent defendants and the amount they are sentenced, saying, One searches our

chronicles in vain for the execution of any member of the affluent strata of this society. The
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 12
Leopolds and Loebs are given prison terms, not sentenced to death (Swarms, 2016).

Unfortunately, defendants on trial, death row or traffic court, are provided with lawyers who are

under-trained and underfunded who provide poor legal assistance. A possible antidote as to why

court appointed counsel perform poorly is they are undercompensated for the tireless amount of

work assigned to them, as little as five dollars an hour (Swarns, 2016). Another possibility as

to why court-appointed counsel may perform poorly is because they often lack the experience to

appropriately defend defendants. Many states do not provide appointed counsel with the training

necessary to handle complex cases therefore, defendants are represented by lawyers with little to

no experience (Swarns, 2016).

Credibility

Credibility is defined as the quality of being convincing or believable, and thus plays a

major role in the verdicts of trials. The role of lawyers, as explained above, determines the

credibility given to their defendant. The more credible a defendant is, the more likely the jury is

to side in favor of them and, in turn, the less credible the defendant is, the less likely it is that a

jury will support them (Wilson, 2016).

In an Aronson and Goldens experiment measuring the influence of various individuals

on sixth graders, ...race and socioeconomic status can heavily impact the individuals degree of

credibility (Wilson, 2016). This is proven by racial statistics in prisons: about 38.5% of

inmates in America are African-American and 33% are Hispanic, making a total of 71.5%

combined, but this does not prove prejudice in juries (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2016). As for

socioeconomic status, the evidence from Aronson and Goldens experiment shows simply that

people are more likely to be influenced by the look of a successful and accomplished individual
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 13
with a high level occupation, than a defendant who does blue-collar work and has received less

education. Socioeconomic status represents how well a defendant is put together, meaning the

likelihood of guilt in which this defendant carries is presumed to be lower if they can provide

high-class witnesses, a well-experienced attorney, and the way the individual carries themselves

in court. The media also takes part in ensuring or crippling a defendants credibility. Even if a

defendant is proven innocent, it is likely that there will remain a degree of suspicion toward the

individual if the media has convinced the masses of their guilt. Prejudices and media do not

always impact the outcome of a trial, but it is a definite possibility that they will. In The People

v. O.J. Simpson, people would carry signs outside the courtroom during the trial reading: "Free

O.J.," "Save the Juice," and "Whether you did it or not, we still love you, O.J." (Bugliosi, 1996).

These jokes and segments of T.V. showed the public's silent support of the charming Orenthal

James Simpson

Race

The topic of racial profiling in the American judicial system could be an entire different

topic in itself, but excluding essential information of race as a factor would lack quality. Race

does, indeed, present itself in decision making within the courtroom undisputedly. In this

decision, juries may not be fully aware of their prejudices because of their particular personal

background, but these preconceptions have often become evident in the courtroom (Wilson,

2010).

The Case of Cory Batey

In Tennessee, Judge Watkins sentenced former Vanderbilt University football player

Cory Batey, 22 years old, to a reduced life sentence of 15 years in prison on Friday, July 15,
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 14
2015. The prison term handed down was the minimum allowed by law. Batey must serve all 15

years, with no possibility of parole, thus putting his time of release at 37 (Barchenger, 2016). On

June 21, 2013, the 21 year-old defendant, not named, was found on the floor unconscious

according to the Metro Nashville police report. Jane Doe has was unconscious during the

incident, but was informed as more evidence was discovered by Tennessean police, including the

graphic, photographs and videos of the rape (Burke, 2016).

This piece of evidence sparked a national debate about sexual assaults on the nation's

college campuses and the conduct of student athletes. This national debate obtained the spotlight

because of the uncanny resemblance to the People v. Turner case in California. Both cases

involved the victim and suspect of case say, they were drunk and remember little or nothing

(King, 2016). This is important because it puts an additional strain on physical evidence,

including the graphic cellphone videos and pictures. Both juries for Turner and Batey found that

digital penetration took place but did not conclude that sexual intercourse had occurred

(Barchenger, 2016). This is what separates these two cases; in California, digital penetration is

not considered rape whereas in Tennessee, it is (Burke, 2016).

The American people did not accept this as an answer. The similarity between the two

cases is extraordinarily comparable and deplorable: Cory Batey is African-American and Brock

Turner is White. The cry for equality was connected from east to west coast, Equality in the

Courtroom! This is not without support. Cory Batey's minimum possible prison sentence, is

3,000% longer than what Brock Turner was given for a comparable crime. According to

attachment #1, police are three times more likely to search African-American and Latino

vehicles and attachment #2 shows minorities are twice as likely to be arrested for drugs over
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 15
Caucasians, despite studies showing Caucasian drug usage and distribution is equivalent if not

higher than African-Americans (Kahn & Kirk, 2015) (King, 2016).

Conclusion

Socioeconomic bias within the courtroom is an issue continuing to rise in the twenty-first

century. Solving this is more complicated and a simple, one step solution. To begin, it is

extremely hard to fault because it is nearly impossible to find a perpetrator. To fault the

defendant for using the resources given to them as a means to elude punishment would be

unethical. In the cases of Ethan Couch and Brock Turner, the counsel of defense did everything

they could to represent their clients, and as a result persuaded its respective judges and juries of

their clients case of Affluenza. Affluenza is a metaphorical illness used to describe a person

grown up in a culture of economic stability and the inability to perceive punishments as

applicable to them (Grohol, 2015). A defendant who has been raised in a culture of affluence at

trial is able to use experienced lawyers who understand their field, and the ability to afford expert

witnesses to testify on their behalf. Affluent defendants present themselves in manner lowers the

assumption of guilt to the judge and jury, thus, they are seen as more credible because of their

economic influence. Finally, races plays a potential role in decision making within the

courtroom. As shown, studies have presented information which backs the notion that

African-American and Latinos are more likely to be profiled in unsolicited stops by police to

unreasonable searches of their vehicles and incarceration based off of drug usage and

distribution.
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 16
References

Aaron Persky . (2016, November 30). Retrieved from

https://www.everipedia.com/aaron-persky/

Bain, C. T., JD. (2016, November 21). Professional interview [Telephone interview].

Barchenger, S. (2016, July 14). Cory Batey sentenced to 15 years in Vanderbilt rape case.

Retrieved December 20, 2016, from

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/2016/07/14/cory-batey-faces-least-15-years-friday-

sentencing/86953944/

Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (March 18, 1963).

Bugliosi, V. (1996). Outrage: Five Reasons Why O.J. Simpson Got Away With Murder.

Washington Post.

Burke, S. (2016, June 18). Nashville rape case echoes sex assault by Stanford swimmer.

Retrieved December 20, 2016, from

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/d139181ea079456388b24f2102c2495a/nashville-rape-case-ec

hoes-sex-assault-stanford-swimmer

Entitlement [Def. 1.2]. (n.d.). In Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/entitlement

Equal Justice USA Staff. (2016, April 01). Fair and Equal Under the Law? Retrieved December

7, 2016, from http://ejusa.org/learn/fairness/

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2016, October 29). Inmate Race. Retrieved December 19, 2016,

from https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 17
Gardner, A. (2016, April 14). Stopping Entitlement: Couch Sentenced Despite 'Affluenza'

Retrieved October 21, 2016, from

http://www.inquisitr.com/2994497/stopping-entitlement-couch-sentenced-despite-his-afflu

enza/

Gideon v. Wainwright 372 US 335, Oyez (Bay County Circuit Court March 18, 1963).

Goodman, N. (2015, April 09). Well, Recuse Me! When a Judge Shouldn't Hear a Case.

Retrieved December 21, 2016, from

http://research.lawyers.com/well-recuse-me-when-a-judge-shouldnt-try-a-case.html

Grinberg, E., & Shoichet, C. E. (2016, September 12). Brock Turner released after 3 months in

jail. Retrieved December 12, 2016, from

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/02/us/brock-turner-release-jail/

Grohol, J. M. (2015, December 31). What is Affluenza? Is it Real? Retrieved December 21,

2016, from http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2015/12/31/what-is-affluenza-is-it-real/

Harvard Kennedy School. (2015, July 07). Public defenders, attorney quality and trial outcomes:

Research on legal representation - Journalist's Resource. Retrieved from

http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-justice/indigent-defense-counsel

-attorney-quality-defendant-outcomes-research-legal-respresentation

Jones, C. E. (2013). GIVE US FREE: ADDRESSING RACIAL DISPARITIES IN BAIL

DETERMINATIONS. N.Y.U. Journal of Legislation & Public Policy, 16(919). Retrieved

December 9, 2016, from

http://www.nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Jones-Give-Us-Free-16nyujlpp919.pd

f
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 18
Judicialrecusal.com Staff. (2016). Grounds for Recusal - Judicial Disqualification Resource

Center. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from

http://www.judicialrecusal.com/grounds-for-recusal/

Kahn, A., & Kirk, C. (2015, August 09). Eight Charts That Show How the Justice System Is

Stacked Against Black Americans. Retrieved December 9, 2016, from

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_c

riminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

King, S. (2016, June 07). KING: Brock Turner, Cory Batey show how race affects sentencing.

Retrieved December 9, 2016, from

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-brock-turner-cory-batey-show-race-affec

ts-sentencing-article-1.2664945

Neitz, M. B. (2013). Socioeconomic Bias in the Judiciary. Golden Gate University School of

Law, GGU Law Digital Commons, 3-30. Retrieved November 29, 2016, from

http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1585&context=pubs

Nolo.com. (2016). What is a writ of habeas corpus? Retrieved from

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/appeals-writ-habeas-corpus-faq-29096-5.html

O'Neill, B. (2008). Affluenza: The all-consuming epidemic (2nd edition). Journal of Financial

Counseling and Planning, 19(1), 70-72. Retrieved from

http://search.proquest.com/docview/217755890?accountid=3785

O'Neill, J. H. (2016). What Others Are Saying... Retrieved September 16, 2016, from

http://www.theaffluenzaproject.com/home/affluenza/
AFFLUENZA
Tuck 19
People v. Turner (June 6, 2016).

Reiman, J. H. (1979). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class and criminal

justice (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Roach, M. A. (2014, October 7). Indigent Defense Counsel, Attorney Quality, and Defendant

Outcomes. Retrieved December 1, 2016, from

http://aler.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/05/07/aler.ahu003.short

Rodrguez-Garavito, C. (2011). Beyond the courtroom: The impact of judicial activism on

socioeconomic rights in latin america. Texas Law Review, 89(7), 1669-1698. Retrieved

from http://search.proquest.com/docview/906063614?accountid=3785

Smith, I. (2016, July 16). Socioeconomic Status And How It Influences The Courtroom.

Retrieved October 17, 2016, from

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/brock-turner-light-sentence

Smith, M. (2013, September 12). Burleson teen charged with four counts of manslaughter.

Retrieved December 12, 2016, from

http://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/news/local_news/burleson-teen-charged-with-four-c

ounts-of-manslaughter/article_7171f25d-e5bc-59e9-b72f-79d1c48bff87.html

Swarns, C. (2004, June 18). The Uneven Scales of Capital Justice. Retrieved October 17, 2016,

from http://prospect.org/article/uneven-scales-capital-justice

28 U.S. Code 455 - Disqualification of justice, judge, or magistrate judge. (1911, March 3).

Retrieved December 21, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/455

United States v. Kras, 71-749 (January 10, 1973).

AFFLUENZA
Tuck 20
Wilson, B. (2010, July 19). Credibility in the Courtroom. Retrieved October 17, 2016, from

https://psychlaw.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/credibility-in-the-courtroom/

Attachments

#1- (Kahn & Kirk, 2015)

#2- (Kahn & Kirk, 2015)