Jurors' Views on the Value and Objectivity of Mental Health Experts Testifying in Sexually Violent Predator Trials

Although psychologists and psychiatrists often testify in court, we know relatively little about the extent to which jurors value the testimony they hear from these experts. We surveyed 161 jurors who rendered opinions in 14 sex offender civil commitment trials after hearing testimony from psychologists and psychiatrists serving as expert witnesses. Most jurors reported that the experts they heard testify were honest, and they tended to attribute disagreements among experts to case complexity, as opposed to adversarial allegiance or bias. Most reported that hearing from the experts helped them make better decisions and that experts using risk assessment instruments could make more accurate predictions than those who did not. Jurors were, however, more skeptical about the ability of experts to accurately predict recidivism when they heard testimony from both prosecution and defense experts. Findings suggest that jurors value risk assessment testimony from experts, but that experts must think carefully about how to best make risk assessment instrument results accessible to jurors. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evaluation Study of Lawyers' Satisfaction with Expert Witness Reports

This study attempted to evaluate the satisfaction of personal injury lawyers with expert witness reports from psychologists and psychiatrists. A questionnaire was sent to 514 civil litigation lawyers and 79 (15.4%) were completed. It was found that most lawyers were satisfied with reports and that there was no difference between the standard and quality of expert reports of psychologists and psychiatrists. Criticisms were limited and focussed on the cost, length and lack of clarity of some of the reports. These criticisms are discussed within the context of the reforms within the legal aid system and it is concluded that expert reports are perceived by lawyers as being reasonably good value for money.     

Predicting the present: expert testimony and civil commitment

This article uses the Supreme Court's decision in Daubert as an opportunity to address a chronic concern regarding the disparity between mental health law as officially enunciated and the practical application of that law. After Daubert, admissibility of expert evidence under the federal rules requires a qualified expert, a reliable basis for the testimony, and relevance to the legal issue. Ongoing psychological research pursues empirical data that expands the scope of psychological expertise and clarifies its limits. This article addresses the requirement of relevance by examining the logical relationship between the psychologist's actuarial and clinical expertise and the legal issues addressed by the court in civil commitment proceedings. Ideally, Daubert might stimulate a process of cooperative analysis in which psychologists and lawyers clarify the proper roles of psychological experts and of the courts with which those experts interact. This article begins that project by clarifying the legal determination required in civil commitment proceedings and by explicating the relationship between the responsibilities of experts and those of courts.     

Psychopathy, criminal responsibility, and civil commitment as a sexual predator

Recent judicial decisions regarding commitment under sexual predator statutes and commentary addressing the legal significance of psychopathy provide an interesting opportunity to reflect upon the exculpatory significance of psychopathy and the appropriate relationship between criminal conviction and police power civil commitment. This paper examines the legal significance of psychopathy for the purposes of criminal responsibility and of civil commitment under sexual predator statutes. By examining the significance of psychopathy for each of these legal institutions, it clarifies our understanding of the legal significance of psychopathy and of the relationship between these institutions. This process illuminates the defensible functions and boundaries of each institution and clarifies the nature of the impairment that should qualify an individual for confinement by each. This analysis interprets criminal conviction and police power commitment, including sexual predator commitment, as integrated institutions of social control intended to provide a coherent approach to psychopaths as well as to others who require state intervention under the police power.     

Civil commitment laws in nineteenth-century New York

The roots of nineteenth-century American civil commitment law lay in English common law, in particular poor law, with its mixed motives of helping lunatics and of protecting the community from them. As state institutions assumed an increasingly large share of the burden of restraint in the 1840s and 1850s, such confinement decisions became subject to greater public scrutiny. This can be seen particularly clearly in New York State, which in 1842 passed a law requiring that two physicians examine each alleged lunatic and report their findings to a judge who then made the final commitment decision. After the Civil War, a number of legal decisions limited the state's power to initiate civil commitments to cases of clear social danger, though families were not so confined. An 1874 statute further tightened procedural guidelines for civil commitments. A State Commissioner in Lunacy was appointed to oversee the internal workings of lunatic asylums. Yet such legal “reforms” failed to slow the increasing tendency of both families and communities to use such institutions as long-term holding places for the socially marginal or threatening.     

How psychiatrists and judges assess the dangerousness of persons with mental illness: an 'expertise bias"

When assessing dangerousness of mentally ill persons with the objective of making a decision on civil commitment, medical and legal experts use information typically belonging to their professional frame of reference. This is investigated in two studies of the commitment decision. It is hypothesized that an 'expertise bias' may explain differences between the medical and the legal expert in defining the dangerousness concept (study 1), and in assessing the seriousness of the danger (study 2). Judges define dangerousness more often as harming others, whereas psychiatrists more often include harm to self in the definition. In assessing the seriousness of the danger, experts tend to be more tolerant with regard to false negatives, as the type of behavior is more familiar to them. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.     

Parent Alienation Syndrome: A Two Step Approach Toward a Solution

This paper deals with the steps involved in mediation before or while legal action and the courts intervene to force a solution by law to often tragic, acrimonious human interaction between former partners. Professionals such as qualified psychologists or psychiatrists should be able to offer a full course of mediation before partners begin divorce proceedings or decisions regarding the placement of children with one party or the other. A 10-year study involving 16 cases provides evidence that the initial use of mediation may well be superior to the initial use of the adversarial system on its own.     

Why the gap? Practice and policy in civil commitment hearings.

The failure of civil commitment procedures to meet statutory requirements is one of the more reliable findings in the applied social sciences. Most states now require specific legal procedures and behavioral standards for involuntary hospitalization. Nonetheless, empirical studies have demonstrated that commitment hearings are rarely adversarial and clinical concerns continue to take precedence over legal issues. These findings are analyzed in the context of three related issues: the grounds for commitment that are used in civil commitment hearings, the particular difficulties of recommitment hearings, and the shortcomings of the national policy of deinstitutionalization. The authors conclude that a primary cause of the gap between legal standards and actual practice is the absence of viable, less restrictive alternatives to inpatient treatment.     

Sexual predator commitment laws: lessons for law and the behavioral sciences

Sex offender commitment laws use a mental health commitment model to lock up the "most dangerous" sex offenders after their prison sentences expire. In Kansas v. Hendricks, the United States Supreme Court rejected the major constitutional challenges to these laws. The Hendricks case clarifies important ambiguities about the use of civil commitment to enforce "police power" interests, as opposed to "parens patriae" interests. Hendricks also clarifies the role of "treatment" in justifying civil commitment. While there remain some important legal issues to be resolved, the future direction of sex offender commitment schemes will turn most significantly on policy decisions. The behavioral sciences can play an important role in shaping these decisions. The most significant questions concern whether expensive commitment programs are the most effective use of scarce treatment and supervision dollars. Additional research should be directed to improving dynamic predictors of recidivism, operationalizing "inability to control" standards, judging the "social meaning" of commitment laws, and assessing the potential treatment disincentives of these laws.     

Patient's choice to suicide v. treater's duty to prevent suicide: Some changing clinical dilemmas

The evolution of civil commitment procedures is seen as reflecting changing social and ethical values regarding individual liberty versus protection of self and others. The dilemma of dealing with the modern suicidal patient places the psychiatrist at the interface of conflicting societal expectations. The legal aspects of civil commitment are seen as not necessarily compatible with the best clinical course for the suicidal patient. The relationship of the process of the civil commitment to the process of treatment is briefly explored.     

The professional liability of behavioral scientists: An overview

Issues regarding the question of what constitutes malpractice by psychologists, psychiatrists, and other mental health professionals, are reviewed. The legal concepts of negligence, professional liability, and causation are explained and related subjects including the duty of mental health professionals and what constitutes a breach of that duty are discussed and illustrated. Guidelines for avoiding legal jeopardy are also presented.     

The admissibility of expert testimony regarding malingering and deception

This article discusses the legal admissibility of expert testimony and the ability of mental health professionals to detect malingering and deception among defendants. A legal analysis of the admissibility of expert testimony regarding malingering and deception in formal legal proceedings is presented. Some guidelines are provided to help mental health professionals and attorneys determine the admissibility of evidence they intend to introduce. Although psychologists and psychiatrists currently have a limited ability to identify accurately malingering and deception, expert testimony about the genuineness of a defendant's mental illness is likely to be held admissible for both practical and evidentiary reasons. In contrast, evidence about a witness' credibility is rarely admissible. In addition, psychologists are ethically obliged to recognize their limitations in making representations about their skills.     

APA amicus curiae briefs. Furthering lesbian and gay male civil rights

The authors describe the American Psychological Association's (APA's) efforts to affect social policy and judicial decision making by delineating APA's participation as amicus curiae in five cases concerning the civil rights of lesbians and gay men. They discuss the function and importance of amicus briefs, review the legal principles used to advance the constitutional rights of lesbians and gay men, outline the facts in the cases APA entered, sketch the legal theories and scientific evidence that APA brought to the courts' attention, and relate the courts' decisions in those cases. They conclude with recommendations for the use of such briefs in future litigation and legislative efforts to advance the rights of lesbians and gay men.     

Identifying emotional disturbance in children- the professionals differ

This study investigated perceptions of conduct and personality indicators of elementary school age children as perceived characteristics of emotional disturbance. The indicators were ranked by teachers, school counselors, school psychologists, clinical psychologists, and psychiatrists, using a Q-sort. It was found that teachers and school counselors did not distinguish between conduct and personality indicators, while the other remaining professional groups demonstrated a significant preference for the personality indicators as characterizing emotional disturbance.     

The unwary purchaser: consumer psychology and the regulation of commerce in America

Starting in the 1870s, American jurists deciding cases of trademark infringement began advancing arguments that the ordinary purchaser was an unwary one, easily deceived by imitations. Embedded within their legal decisions was a vision of the typical consumers' habitual behavior and cognitive ability. In response to legal critics who argued that the presumed psychology of the consumer was unevenly deployed, applied psychologists developed laboratory-based experiments and scales for determining the likelihood that the "average" purchaser would be confused. Although these psychologists failed in their goal of securing regular legal patronage, this commercial context and the resulting experiments were constitutive of the delineation of "recognition" as a distinct mental process. Furthermore, this case study complicates the scholarly consensus about the role of standardization and personal responsibility in the liberal administration of mass society.     

The effectiveness and ethical justification of psychiatric outpatient commitment

Studies link involuntary outpatient commitment with improved patient outcomes, fueling debate on its ethical justification. This study compares inpatient utilization for committed outpatients in the 1990s with those who were not under outpatient civil commitment orders. Findings reveal committed outpatients had higher utilization of inpatient services and restraint episodes prior to their commitment compared with a control group. Committed outpatients also were more likely to have been on discharge status at the time of admission, have been admitted involuntarily under emergency legal procedures, and have had a greater number of admissions and hospital days prior to their commitment. Following commitment, patients had fewer hospitalizations, shorter lengths of stay, fewer seclusion episodes and hours, and fewer restraint episodes and hours. Findings are discussed within the context of parens patriae and therapeutic jurisprudence, and support medical and public policy justifications for ethical uses of outpatient civil commitment laws for seriously mentally ill patients.     

Competence to proceed in SVP commitment hearings: Irrelevant or fundamental due process right?

Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) civil commitment, intended to incapacitate offenders and protect the public, has been implemented in 21 jurisdictions. While respondents in traditional civil commitment proceedings need not be competent to proceed, SVP commitment may present a greater deprivation of liberty and therefore greater procedural protections may be merited. Statutes and case law regarding competence in this context address two issues: competence to challenge unproven sexual offense allegations and competence to participate in the SVP commitment process. Of the 14 states that have addressed the issue, one concluded that respondents must be competent to challenge unproven allegations and one concluded that all SVP respondents must be competent to participate in the commitment process. Differences between SVP and traditional civil commitment, the rationale underlying the competence requirement, and decisions regarding competence in SVP commitment are reviewed to inform debate regarding whether SVP respondents must be competent to proceed with the commitment process. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.