‘The witness who saw, /he left little doubt’: a comparative consideration of expert testimony in mental disability law cases in common and civil law systems

The question of how courts assess expert evidence—especially when mental disability is an issue—raises the corollary question of whether courts adequately evaluate the content of the expert testimony or whether judicial decision making may be influenced by teleology (‘cherry picking’ evidence), pretextuality (accepting experts who distort evidence to achieve socially desirable aims), and/or sanism (allowing prejudicial and stereotyped evidence). Such threats occur despite professional standards in forensic psychology and other mental health disciplines that require ethical expert testimony. The result is expert testimony that, in many instances, is at best incompetent and at worst biased. The paper details threats to competent expert testimony in a comparative law context—in both the common law (involuntary civil commitment laws and risk assessment criminal laws) and, more briefly, civil law. We conclude that teleology, pretextuality, and sanism have an impact upon judicial decision making in both the common law and civil law. Finally, we speculate as to whether the new United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is likely to have any impact on practices in this area. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Mental health criminal defenses in persons with neuropsychiatric disorders

Persons with neuropsychiatric disorders present specific and unique challenges for forensic experts and defense attorneys in the criminal justice system. This article reviews two potential criminal defenses: legal insanity and the various legal standards or tests of criminal responsibility that are used in jurisdictions throughout the United States (i.e., the M’Naghten standard and the American Law Institute's Model Penal Code), and the partial legal defense of diminished capacity (lacking the mental state necessary to be found guilty of a specific intent crime). The process of evaluating criminal responsibility or diminished capacity is also presented with a specific emphasis on common issues that arise in evaluating defendants with Intellectual Developmental Disorder (Intellectual Disability), Parasomnias, Seizure Disorders, and Neurocognitive Disorders.     

Residential mental health assessment within Dutch criminal cases: a discussion

In Dutch criminal cases in which doubts arise about the defendant's mental health, a forensic assessment will be requested. This is provided either by the multidisciplinary staff of residential clinics who conduct forensic evaluations for the court, or by mental health professionals contracted on a part-time basis by district courts. This article discusses the procedures applied in such cases as well as the relevant legal provisions. It focuses particularly on the clinical observation, evaluation, and reporting that is carried out over a number of weeks in the residential setting of the Pieter Baan Centrum. Specific attention is paid to procedures applied in this clinic. It is suggested that Dutch procedures for the use of mental health expertise can best be characterized by three aspects: multidisciplinary observation and reporting, the use of a sliding scale for indicating degree of responsibility, and, finally, the involvement and payment of experts by the state as such, rather than by the prosecution and/or the defense. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Risk Assessment in the Law: Legal Admissibility,Scientific Validity,and Some Disparities between Research and Practice

Risk assessment expert testimony remains an area of considerable concern within the U.S. legal system. Historically, controversy has surrounded the constitutionality of such testimony, while more recently, following the adoption of new evidentiary standards that focus on scientific validity, the admissibility of expert testimony has received greater scrutiny. Based on examples from recent appellate court cases involving sexual violent predator (SVP) hearings, we highlight difficulties that courts continue to face in evaluating this complex expert testimony. In each instance, we point to specific problems in courts' reasoning that lead it to admit expert testimony of questionable scientific validity. We conclude by offering suggestions for how courts might more effectively evaluate the scientific validity of risk expert testimony and how mental health professionals might better communicate their expertise to the courts. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Videoconferencing and forensic mental health in Australia

Videoconferencing is in common use in Australian forensic mental health services. It provides opportunities to link remote prisons, courts, and psychiatric clinics with distant specialist services, and enables a range of activities including assessment, treatment and feedback, expert testimony, education, and inter-service planning. These functions are acceptable to patients and clinicians, and in Australia videoconferencing minimizes disruption to small services and their patients, who might otherwise face lengthy journeys. In particular, marginalized patient groups, including indigenous people and prisoners, may receive better services. The evidence base supports use of videoconferencing despite a number of practical, legal, and clinical issues that may reduce its effectiveness compared with face-to-face assessments. Videoconferencing technologies are critical to effective forensic mental health services in Australia.     

Teleconferencing model for forensic consultation, court testimony, and continuing education

A medical center-based forensic clinic that provides the necessary comprehensive consultation, continuing education, court testimony, and clinical services through an applied model of teleconferencing applications is addressed. Telemedicine technology and services have gained the attention of both legal and clinical practitioners, examining trends and models of health care for underserved populations, and identifying where consultation with a team of professionals may benefit service providers in rural communities. The contribution offered herein provides an understanding of the history of the development of the clinic, a theoretical model that has been applied to a clinical forensic program that employs telepsychiatry services, and the ethical and malpractice liability issues confronted in using teleconferencing services. This model is examined through a child and adolescent forensic evaluation clinic. The goals of this model are offered, as are a number of applications within the broad spectrum of services utilizing telemedicine. Finally, changing patterns are addressed in clinically based health-care delivery for criminal justice, social services, and forensic mental health.     

The lawyer and the forensic expert: Boundaries of ethical practice

The role of attorneys in relationship to mental health experts is examined. Issues which are discussed include the necessity of expert testimony, selection of the expert, and the data underlying the expert opinion. In addition, the attorneys' responsibilities in presenting the mental health expert in court is discussed with reference to different elements of the trial process.     

Bias and expert testimony of mental health professionals in adversarial proceedings: A preliminary investigation

The role of mental health professionals testifying as expert witnesses has been the subject of increasing criticism. Cases in which opposing experts reach different conclusions are dismissed as “battles of the experts” and psychologists and psychiatrists are described as “hired guns.” This preliminary, analogue study examined the degree to which the opinions and testimony of mental health professionals may differ according to which side retains the expert. Results provided some support for the proposition that mental health professionals' testimony may vary according to the side by which they are retained.     

Mental health expert witnesses: Of science and crystal balls

This article reviews the history of and basis for mental health testimony. It surveys the roles of such experts in the legal system and the concomitant problems with current approaches. Finally, it suggests specific reforms that may improve the use of mental health experts in legal proceedings.     

The Timing of the Defense Opening Statement: Don't Wait Until the Evidence Is in1

Defense attorneys often reserve their opening statements until after presentation of evidence by the prosecution, a practice advocated by some experts. The current study, involving 291 subjects, varied the timing of the defense attorney's opening statement so that it preceded the prosecutor's opening statement, immediately followed the prosecutor's opening statement, or was reserved until after the prosecutor's case presentation. The type of opening statement (content vs. noncontent) and the testimony (altered vs. unaltered) were varied for purposes of increasing generalization. Materials were based on an actual case of auto theft and were presented in written form complete with judge's instructions. The results showed that subjects perceived eyewitness testimony, the prosecutor's opening statement, the prosecutor's closing statement, the defense attorney's closing statement, and the effectiveness of the attorneys differently depending on the timing of the opening statement. Each of these items favored the defense more than the prosecution if the defense opening statement was earlier rather than later. These effects did not interact with type of opening statement or the testimony alteration variable. Individual verdicts, when weighted by the subjects' confidence in their verdicts, were also affected by the timing variable with verdicts more favorable to the defense when the defense opening statement was given earlier rather than later. The consistency with which the timing variable affected subjects' impressions suggests that defense attorneys who take their first opportunity to make an opening statement, rather than delay, end up with a stronger case for their client. Possible exceptions to this conclusion are discussed.     

Competency to stand trial: Legal and clinical issues

A fundamental principle of criminal law is the right of defendants to a fair trial. Courts have long recognized that an essential component of this fairness doctrine is the ability, or competency, of defendants to participate in their defense. Mental health professionals have been extensively involved in assisting the courts in the evaluation of competency to stand trial. Three aspects of competency to stand trial in criminal cases are reviewed: the legal criteria defining competency to stand trial, the clinical assessment of competency, and the treatment of defendants found incompetent to stand trial.     

Effects of Eyewitness Evidence on Plea-Bargain Decisions by Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys1

The present experiment tested the relative impact of two types of eyewitness evidence (identification and non identification) on plea-bargain decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. A hypothetical case involving a robbery was mailed to three prosecutors and three defense attorneys in each of 47 states. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive a case in which an eyewitness claimed: (a) the defendant was the criminal (identification), (b) the defendant was not the criminal (non identification), or (c) it was not possible to tell whether the defendant was the criminal (control). Similar to findings with jurors, both prosecutors and defense attorneys underutilized the non identification information in making their plea-bargain decisions. In the case of the prosecutors, there was evidence that the underutilization of eyewitness non identification was at least partially mediated by the prosecutors' predictions of juror reaction to the evidence.     

Integrating the criminal justice system into mental health service delivery: the worcester diversion experience

The substantial number of persons with mental illness encountered in many sectors of the criminal justice system has spurred actors from various agencies within that system to take actions aimed at reducing the growth of this population. These actions have included the development of specialty police units, jail diversion programs, and other mechanisms for channeling persons with mental illness out of the criminal justice system and into mental health treatment. The courts, too, have become involved in this effort with the recent development of the "mental health court," the latest of the "specialty" or "problem solving courts." These courts have not been without their critics, however, nor are they the only feasible approach to court-based diversion. This paper identifies and explores a range of options for structuring the relationship between criminal courts and local mental health systems. Beginning with a discussion of the rationale motivating the development of mental health courts, two alternatives to this specialty court model are discussed. One involves judges dealing with defendants having mental illness and substance abuse on a case-by-case basis. The other takes advantages of linkages that may already exist between most courts and the mental health providers who conduct their forensic assessments, expanding the role of these providers to serve as boundary spanners between courts and the components of local mental health systems. Regardless of the model adopted, however, appropriate linkages must exist between the courts and relevant providers. A case study is provided that demonstrates how the status of a locale's linkages can be evaluated and how the information derived from such evaluation can be used to improve the linkages between police, courts, and health and human services agencies.     

Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference

Although most criminal cases are disposed of through the process of plea bargaining, little research has focused on this process, and that research has focused on two variables: probability of conviction and potential sentence. This study examined the plea bargaining process from the perspective of the criminal defense attorney and expands prior research by including a third variable: defendant preference regarding plea. Attorney participants (N = 186) responded to a survey containing a vignette presented in a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects design, in which there was systematic manipulation of the following three variables in the context of criminal litigation: likelihood of conviction based on the strength of evidence, defendant preference regarding plea, and potential sentence if convicted. All of these variables were considered important to criminal defense attorneys, and how these variables significantly interacted with each other is explained. We discuss these findings in light of past research and theory that suggested attorneys make plea recommendations according only to probability of conviction and potential sentence, and we discuss implications and directions for future research.     

Genetic risk: the new frontier for the duty to warn.

Mental health professionals usually think of the "duty to warn" in the context of mental illness. However, two state appellate courts have endorsed a duty to warn when children of a patient may be at risk genetically for acquiring the disease of their parents. In these cases, the courts held that a physician's legal obligations extended beyond his or her patient to the patient's children. This article discusses these cases, as well as issues regarding implementation of such a duty and the implications for the physician-patient relationship in a health care environment that will be dominated increasingly by genetics issues. The article concludes that it is premature to apply a duty to warn to the treatment of mental illness and to concerns regarding future criminal behavior.     

Ethical dilemmas in forensic evaluations

Ethical issues emerging from forensic assessments are addressed from clinical and research perspectives. The relevance of agency, forensic identification, and attitudes toward defendants are explored within the framework of ethical practice. Finally, the ethical role of mental health professionals in the courtroom, the scope and basis of their testimony, and the rendering of conclusory opinions are discussed within a psycholegal context.     

Disclosure of Tests and Raw Test Data to the Courts: A Need for Reform

Psychologists' current practices with respect to the disclosure of tests and raw test data to courts are damaging their reputations as scientists, undermining their credibility as honest professionals acting in good faith, and contrary to the best interests of consumers. The profession is conducting itself in a contradictory fashion that deserves reform. There is need for an interdisciplinary panel drawn from the American Psychological Association and American Bar Association to develop reasonable procedures for disclosure of tests and test data in legal proceedings. These procedures should be developed with input from experienced psychological expert witnesses, attorneys, and judges from a variety of state and federal jurisdictions, diverse geographical areas, and different types of legal proceedings. This expert panel should also address the issue of attorney coaching of clients in preparation for assessment by psychologists.