Sexual abuse victimization and the child witness in Canada: Legal, ethical, and professional issues for psychologists.

The Canadian legal system has made a number of significant reforms in the last few decades regarding the rights of child witnesses and, in particular, the rights of those who have disclosed sexual abuse. This paper provides an overview of the law in Canada as it pertains to child sexual abuse victims and witnesses, and reflects on the role and responsibilities of psychologists who work with child witnesses. It reviews the effects of protection reforms and preparation programs on children who must testify, examines some of the current major issues in the research literature in the area of interviewing and assessing sexually abused children, and considers the role of the psychologists as expert witness in court. In addition, it discusses potential ethical dilemmas for psychologists who work with child witnesses, and proposes recommendations for research and clinical practice. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Teaching psychology to jurists: Initiatives and reactions prior to World War I.

This article deals with the kind of psychology suggested for jurists that was thought to be necessary training for their work. An analysis of the content of two textbooks by Otto Lipmann and Karl Marbe reveals that such teaching activity involves two different levels of historical analysis. On the one hand, it relates to experimental research done by psychologists on law-related issues; on the other, it concerns the professional experience psychologists accumulated by acting as expert witnesses in court. The paper investigates how psychologists presented psychology to jurists, which methods and theories they suggested as being essential for juristic training and professional performance, and whether jurists appreciated these materials and efforts. These inquiries are embedded in the debate on the history of criminal psychology, taking into account the European, particularly the German, context. The author shows how specific historical developments led to an increased exchange between experimental psychology and criminal law during the first decades of the 20th century. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Whose Shadow Is Crooked? Comment.

Comments on the article by McCloskey and Egeth (1983), which examines the arguments in favor of experimental psychologists testifying as expert witnesses. In agreement with McCloskey and Egeth, I believe that psychologists should be free to decide for themselves whether they wish to offer expert testimony on eyewitness performance. I fear, however, that we may no longer have the choice. At the same time that psychologists are reading the McCloskey and Egeth articles that are so deeply critical of experimental psychologists offering testimony as an interesting intellectual exercise, prosecuting attorneys across the land are using them for an entirely different purpose: Judges are being told that the articles are proof that the psychological testimony does not even pass the "Frye test". Even as we speak, prosecutors are using the McCloskey and Egeth article to argue that there is no general acceptance in the field. In anticipation of this prosecutorial strategy, let me suggest that despite the views of McCloskey and Egeth, there are numerous research findings that are generally accepted in our field. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The "general acceptance" of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts.

63 experts on eyewitness testimony were surveyed about their courtroom experiences and opinions on various issues. There was a strong consensus indicated by an agreement rate of at least 80% that the data on the following topics are reliable enough to present in court: the wording of questions, lineup instructions, misleading postevent information, the accuracy–confidence correlation, attitudes and expectations, exposure time, unconscious transference, showups, and the forgetting curve. Over 70% of the experts also endorsed lineup fairness, the cross-race identification bias among White witnesses, and the tendency to overestimate the duration of events. Although most eyewitness experts who have testified have done so on behalf of criminal defendants, they were just as likely to consent for the prosecution as for the defense; moreover, they were more likely to agree to testify in civil cases than in criminal. Concerning their role in court, most respondents indicated that their main objective is to educate the jury, and that juries are more competent with the aid of experts than without. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Intoxicated witnesses and suspects: Procedures and prevalence according to law enforcement.

Legal psychologists have generally neglected intoxicated witnesses and suspects in their research. One possible reason is the lack of objective information about the prevalence and characteristics of this witness and suspect group. Also unclear is whether standard police procedures for dealing with intoxicated individuals exist and what these may be. The present survey was conducted to help fill this void. Law enforcement officers completed a survey about their experiences with intoxicated witnesses and suspects. Their responses provide clear evidence that dealing with intoxicated witnesses and suspects is common and that there are few standard procedures for handling such individuals. As our data strongly suggest that this group has a significant presence in law enforcement contexts, several research and policy questions are apparent. For example, if the intoxicated differ from sober witnesses and suspects, should this warrant uniquely tailored procedural recommendations? Findings from this survey are intended to spur and guide research aiming to provide useful guidelines to law enforcement on how to interact with this potentially vulnerable and underresearched group. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Meeting the challenge of the "junk science" defense in domestic violence litigation.

Attorneys increasingly challenge the admissibility of expert testimony in domestic violence litigation on the ground that it is "junk science." This article discusses the standards courts apply when determining whether to admit "novel" scientific theory and methodology. It is recommended that psychologists offering testimony that may be subjected to this kind of challenge, critically evaluate the foundation for their opinions in light of the admissibility standards being applied in the pertinent jurisdiction, and that they directly address with the attorneys offering them as witnesses how best to present that foundation to the trial judge in their mutual effort to meet and overcome the junk science challenge. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Roles for Psychologists in End-of-Life Care: Emerging Models of Practice.

Professional psychologists are increasingly likely to encounter opportunities to work with patients and families facing end-of-life issues. Psychologists can provide psychological assessment, intervention for patients and families, consultation with and support of health care team members, grief therapy, and program development and evaluation. Psychological services are useful for healthy individuals who wish to make thoughtful plans about their own future care, patients with life-limiting illnesses, families stressed by providing end-of-life care, bereaved individuals, and health care providers who face issues of burnout and strain. Several challenges for psychologists working in end-of-life care are noted, including training, development of clear roles, and reimbursement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Daubert v. Merrell Dow and expert testimony by clinical psychologists: Implications and recommendations for practice.

The role and practice of clinical psychologists as expert witnesses is discussed in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993). Daubert v. Merrell Dow is reviewed, and its implications for clinicians who testify as expert witnesses are presented. A distinction is made between expert testimony in a generic sense, and scientific expert testimony. By virtue of clinical psychology's adoption of the mantle of science, clinical psychologists should adhere to scientific standards of data gathering in order to qualify as scientific experts. Guidelines are provided to assist clinicians in assessing the confidence with which conclusions can be termed scientific, and ethical concerns are reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

A confidence-credibility model of expert witness persuasion: Mediating effects and implications for trial consultation.

Trial consultation is a quickly growing domain of professional practice for psychologists. Preparing expert witnesses to testify is just one prime example of practice options for consultants. A wealth of evidence shows that developing expert confidence and credibility are important goals for witness training. However, research has yet to articulate a list of testimony delivery skills needed to bolster perceptions of credibility and agreement with the expert. The present study advances expert credibility theory and trial consultation practice by empirically validating a confidence-credibility mediation model of expert witness persuasion. It is argued that this model, grounded in credibility and confidence theories, can be integrated with existing methods of witness preparation training. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

On being ethical in legal places.

Comments that many ethical pitfalls may await psychologists who participate as expert witnesses in the legal process. This article describes the ethical problems and examines their origin in light of important differences in purpose between psychological practice and legal process. Special attention is given to problems of objectivity in the assessment process, ethical issues in the interpretation of data in the courtroom, and the client's psychological welfare. Suggestions for maintaining ethical practice in the role of expert witness are provided. (29 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reflections of a consulting counseling psychologist: Implications of the principles for education and training at the doctoral and postdoctoral level in consulting psychology for the practice of counseling psychology.

Examines issues related to the "Principles for Education and Training at the Doctoral and Postdoctoral Level in Consulting Psychology/Organizational" (R. L. Lowman et al, Education & Training Committee, see record 2003-04049-003), viewed from the perspective of a counseling psychologist whose primary work role is organizational consultation. The author traces the foundations of counseling psychology as they relate to organizational consulting practice. Comparisons are drawn between unifying themes and roles of counseling psychologists and consulting psychology domains and competencies. Each competency domain is examined with respect to its relative uniqueness or similarity of coverage in counseling psychology training and practice. Issues are raised about the relationship of individual counseling and individual consulting psychology. Suggestions are made about increased inclusion in training of vocational psychology theory, multicultural issues, supervised practicum experience, and role boundary work with respect to consultation and psychotherapy. The Principles are viewed as a resource to counseling psychologists, particularly in defining competencies and training needs related to enhancement of intergroup relations and organizational-wide structural interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Children, psychiatrists and the courts: understanding the ambivalence of the legal profession. Part 1--General principles

Psychiatrists and other mental health professionals are frequently involved as expert witnesses in court proceedings related to children and adolescents. Their testimony may be based on a therapeutic relationship, but frequently arises because of an assessment conducted specifically for the court process. This two part paper discusses some of the issues that arise when child psychiatrists are involved as expert witnesses in litigation, with specific focus on their role in child custody, sexual abuse and young offender cases. It also offers some practical advice for those who may be called as witnesses. There is controversy in the legal profession about the role of mental health professionals in the court process. While there is recognition of their expertise, there is also a concern about not wanting to have experts usurp the role of the courts. Legal professionals also question the "objectivity" of experts, and the reliability of their opinions. Frequently the opinions of psychiatrists about children and adolescents involved in litigation have inherently speculative and value based dimensions, and not "scientific". Participation in the court process by mental health experts is nevertheless a vitally important role, providing information, analysis and recommendations about what are often very difficult societal decisions. Part two of this paper starts on page 531.     

Forensic responsibilities of the legal nurse consultant

1. Legal nurse consultants are registered nurses who use their clinical knowledge and expertise to assist attorneys with their cases in any context where law and medicine overlap. 2. A working knowledge of the four elements that constitute negligence is essential for a legal nurse consultant who works on medical and dental malpractice cases. 3. The ultimate goal of the legal nurse consultant is to provide the attorney with answers to questions relating to medical issues that may arise in a court of law. 4. The greatest challenge and opportunity the legal nurse consultant faces is the task of educating attorneys on the medical issues of their cases so that they are as knowledgeable and comfortable with these issues as they are with the liability issues.     

Eyewitness identification: What can a psychologist tell a jury?

Examines the arguments in favor of experimental psychologists testifying as expert witnesses in cases involving eyewitnesses to inform the jury about problems with eyewitness testimony. Rationales for such use are (1) the assertion the jurors cannot discriminate between accurate and inaccurate witnesses, and (2) the assumption that jurors are too willing to believe eyewitness testimony. The present authors point out that known cases of erroneous conviction due to juror overbelief fail to establish that the frequency is unacceptably high. Other studies indicate that jurors are able to take into account at least some factors that influence witness testimony. Contrary to claims made recently by psychologists and lawyers, it is by no means clear that expert psychological testimony about eyewitnesses would improve jurors' ability to evaluate eyewitness testimony. In fact, it is even possible that this sort of expert testimony would have detrimental effects. A hypothetical example of a prosecutor examining a defense psychologist is presented. (34 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The psychologist as an expert witness on the issue of insanity.

Psychologists have made assertions in the courtroom "that do not have the blessings of the entire professional psychological community, and these assertions have brought court opporpribum to them and perhaps to the psychologist in general." Testimony from a District Court of the District of Columbia is presented; it provides "psychologists who rely on projective tests with information on how such evaluations may be treated by an opposing and often hostile attorney, or how they may be interpreted in a court of law which permits cross examination of witnesses, including expert witnesses." (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The expert witness, the adversary system, and the voice of reason: Reconciling impartiality and advocacy.

The legal system and the profession of psychology have differing expectations that cause psychologists who serve as expert witnesses to face fundamental conflicts. The rules of evidence demand that experts assist the trier of fact, the adversary system demands that experts serve the parties who retain them, and the ethical codes and guidelines demand that experts impartially assist the court, only in their area of competence. Psychological experts are left to sort out the competing demands, as well as their potential liability, while recognizing the importance of being persuasive. This article addresses the competing tensions expert witnesses face and offers an approach to reconciling these tensions that relies on competence, relevance, perspective, balance, and candor. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Legal issues in the assessment and treatment of individuals with dual diagnoses.

The difficult legal, ethical, and professional issues confronting psychologists who work with people with dual diagnoses are discussed here. Applicable constitutional principles are outlined in the context of discussing the right to institutional services and to refuse treatment, statutes that go beyond constitutional protections are described, issues that people with dual diagnoses face in the criminal and civil justice systems are highlighted, and some recommendations that psychologists should consider when providing services to this population are offered. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Adjudicative competence in adolescent defendants: Judges' and defense attorneys' views of legal standards for adolescents in juvenile and criminal court.

Although courts have increasingly required that adolescent defendants be competent to proceed with adjudication, the legal standard for competence in juvenile court is not yet settled. As a first step toward obtaining greater clarification in legal standards, in this study the authors surveyed 338 judges and defense attorneys regarding their beliefs about competence standards. Judges and defense attorneys believe that it is particularly important for juveniles to have competence-related legal capacities, compared to adults. However, lower levels of competence were considered necessary for juveniles adjudicated in juvenile court than for juveniles adjudicated in criminal court. Developmental immaturity was seen as moderately important to juveniles' competence, although it was rated as less important than mental disorders or cognitive impairments. Furthermore, relatively few judges appear to agree that adolescents should be found incompetent on the basis of developmental immaturity alone. The implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Issues of Legal Process.

Comments on 3 articles in the November 1964 issue of the American Psychologist which deal with issues of legal process. The articles are: "Psychology and the legal process: Testimonial privileged communications" (see record 1965-06324-001) by R. L. Geiser and P. D. Rheingold, "The psychologist as an expert witness on the issue of insanity" (see record 1965-06327-001) by R. Jeffery and "The psychiatrist and tests of criminal responsibility" (see record 1965-06329-001) by R. Leifer. The commenter notes that of the three, only Jeffery's paper gives the reader a concrete look at samples of what is currently done in the legal system. Jeffery presents samples of testimony as actually presented by psychologists in open court, that allows the reader a glimpse at what is, and provides the reader the opportunity to formulate alternative approaches to the problems. Leifer's (1964) discussion on criminal responsibility, while enlightened to a certain degree by Szasz' new look at psychiatric mythology, but the commenter notes two blind spots. Geiser and Rheingold (1964), in their discussion on privileged communication, manage to be informative to an audience of psychologists and, at the same time, add proposals that stem fro'm their own view points. However, the commenter questions their blanket assumption that psychological services that go beyond the classical dimensions of psychotherapy or psychodiagnostics should not be covered by privileged communication. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)