Psychiatric Testimony--Who Can Give it and When? (original) (raw)

Legal professionals and witness statements from people with a suspected mental health diagnosis

International journal of law and psychiatry

Individuals with mental health problems are considered to be part of a group labeled 'vulnerable' in forensic psychology literature and the legal system more generally. In producing witness statements, there are numerous guidelines in the UK, designed to facilitate the production of reliable and valid accounts by those deemed to be vulnerable witnesses. And yet, it is not entirely clear how mental health impacts on reliability and validity within the judicial system, partly due to the diversity of those who present with mental health difficulties. In this paper, we set out to explore how legal professionals operating in the UK understand the impact of mental distress on the practical production of witness testimonies. Twenty legal professionals, including police officers, judges, magistrates and detectives were involved in a semi-structured interview to examine their knowledge and experience of working with mental health problems, and how they approached and worked with this...

Psychiatrists and the Parameters of Expert Testimony

A provocative paper by Faust and Ziskin (1988a) questioned whether psychiatry and professional psychology had any credible role in offering expert testimony. They concluded that psychological assessment, diagnosis, and clinical judgment (see also Ziskin & Faust, 1988) were of insufficient quality and should not be allowed as expert evidence. A vigorous, and at times acrimonious , debate ensued (e.g., Brodsky, 1989; Faust & Ziskin, 1988b; Matarrazzo, 1990, 1991; Ziskin & Faust, 1991). We do not intend to enter this foray. Rather, we believe that a common ground could possibly be achieved by addressing two questions that undergird this controversy. First, how do mental health experts express their confidence/uncertainty regarding their clinical data and conclusions? Second, what effect do expressions or confidence/uncer-tainty have on juror perceptions? Indeed, the simmering controversy might subside, if it could be demonstrated that either (a) experts accurately stated their level of confidence in their opinions, or (b) prospective jurors were uninfluenced by overstated opinions. The effects on judges and juries of how expert testimony is presented has gone largely unnoticed in the professional literature. One notable exception has been the barrage of criticism levied at mental health experts for their overreaching testimony in insanity trials (e.. A particularly contentious issue is whether conclu-sory opinions on the matter of insanity "invade the province of the jury" by unduly influencing jurors' perceptions and subsequent verdict. The "undue influence" argument was raised in the aftermath of the M'Naghten trial (Brooks, 1974) and has periodically resurfaced (Goldstein, 1967; Halleck,

The matter of forensic psychiatry: a historical enquiry

Medical history, 2006

Since antiquity, some men have not been considered accountable for their actions when they transgressed the law, and were exempted from legal penalties, or or given lesser ones. Why? The rationale for legal exemption has varied over time. So have the labels assigned to such lawbreakers, and even the personnel involved in the labelling process. For centuries, settling the question of deviant mental states of relevance to the court seemed relatively unproblematic. It was thought that personal acquaintance would easily discover such states of mind and the court could then be notified. It was not until the nineteenth century that western society felt a need to regulate this problematique. As a result, or as a precondition for this process of settling the question of legal accountability, the matter came to be construed in part as a medical problem. Physicians, and later psychiatrists, came to be regarded as possessing specific knowledge in this area which qualified them to judge a person's legal accountability. Personal knowledge of the deranged defendant was supplanted by professional knowledge of sanity and insanity as the basis for authority on the matter of accountability.

AAPL Practice Guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial

PubMed, 2007

Competence to stand trial is a legal construct used to identify those criminal defendants who have the requisite mental capacity to understand the nature and objective of the proceedings against them and to participate rationally in preparing their defense. This Practice Guideline has described how psychiatrists should evaluate individuals concerning their competence to stand trial. The Guideline describes acceptable forensic psychiatric practice for such evaluations. Where possible, it specifies standards of practice and principles of ethics and also emphasizes the importance of analyzing an individual defendant's case in the context of statutes and case law applicable in the jurisdiction where the evaluation takes place. The recommendations in the Guideline both reflect and are limited by evolving case law, statutory requirements, legal publications, and the current state of psychiatric knowledge. The authors have taken note of nationally applicable case law, federal constitutional standards, statutory language, and federal and state interpretations of the rights or statutes, recognizing that jurisdictions may differ in their specific interpretation or application of statutes or general constitutional standards. The review of cases concerning specific psychiatric diagnoses illustrates general U.S. trends, and psychiatrists must remain cognizant of their jurisdictions' interpretations of statutes or constitutional requirements. By surveying a variety of practices and approaches to data gathering and case analysis, the authors believe that this Guideline will stimulate additional collegial discussion about what is necessary and sufficient for adequate evaluations of adjudicative competence. The notion that psychiatrists should apply expertise to competence assessments stems from the principal that, before allowing a defendant to face criminal prosecution and possible punishment, courts need reasonable assurance--based, if necessary, on a careful, individualized evaluation--that the defendant has adequate mental capacity to make a defense. At a minimum, a psychiatrist's opinion about adjudicative competence should reflect an understanding of the jurisdictional standard and of how the defendant's mental condition affects competence as defined with the jurisdiction. The psychiatrist's report should clearly describe the opinion and the reasoning that leads to it. Psychiatrists who provide mental health expertise concerning adjudicative competence give trial courts information needed to assure that defendants can appropriately protect themselves and that criminal proceedings will be accurate, dignified,and just.

Forensic psychiatric experts under the legal microscope

Legal and Criminological Psychology, 2013

Purpose. We examined how 157 legal professionals view the role and performance of forensic psychiatric experts (psychiatrists and psychologists) in court, and what experiences they have with the experts.

Psychological evidence in Court: Legal developments in England and The United States

Psychology, Crime & Law, 1994

Psychological testimony in England, except when it has dealt with clinical matters, has generally been ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it would usurp the function of the jury to decide matters of "common knowledge and experience". The so-called Turner rule governing admissibility of psychological evidence has been interpreted according to a dubious assumption about the transparency of human behaviour, but this restrictive interpretation was rejected in a recent Court of Appeal decision, which should result in a more receptive attitude to psychological evidence.

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 42:437–42, 2014

2016

In this commentary, I reflect on the narratives of offending that are generated in the courtroom and those that are generated in the therapeutic space between an offender patient and his or her therapist. I discuss the similarities and differences between these different stories and explore the role of the psychiatrist in both cases.