The Current Status of the Psychologist as an Expert Witness.

Abstract

Pacht and his associates review court decisions that have helped to establish the psychologist as an expert witness in criminal and civil trials. They then suggest guidelines that would facilitate the acceptance of the psychologist in this role.

Interrater Reliability of the Fitness Interview Test across 4 Professional Groups

“…Historically, only physicians were permitted to evaluate fitness. Since the 1940s, the ability of psychologists and other mental health professionals to evaluate fitness has been increasingly recognized in the US (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). A recent survey indicated that 47 states allow psychologists to evaluate fitness, 15 allow social workers, and 9 allow nurse practitioners and others (34).…”

On being ethical in legal places.

“…Further, the psychologist at this point was inappropriately addressing the ultimate question-the answer for which the judge and jury are responsible. Due criticism has been levied against psychologists for assuming this responsibility (Morse, 1978;Pacht et al, 1973;Ziskin, 1975). Unfortunately, such points of conflict and their unfavorable consequences may be more common than they are exaggerated.…”

“…Finally, we urge psychologists to be assertive concerning the establishment of a truly collaborative relationship with the attorney and the client (be this an individual or a court). Many other writers have remarked on the importance of collaboration with the attorney in preparation for expert testimony in order to provide for effective use of the psychologist's expertise (Brodsky & Robey, 1972;Pacht et al, 1973;Twardy & Siomopoulos, 1977;Wolfgang, 1974;Brodsky, Note 1). Careful joint preparation will reduce the number of "surprises" encountered by psychologists in the courtroom and allow the psychologists to avoid various ethical pitfalls.…”

“…The activities of psychologists and other mental health specialists in the courtroom have received considerable attention in the literature. The usefulness of behavioral science information and of testimony of psychologists and psychiatrists in the legal process has been widely debated (Bazelon, 1974;Ennis & Litwack, 1974;Gardner, 1976;Leifer, 1964;Levine, 1971;Loftus & Monahan, 1980;Meehl, 1977;Morse,* 1978;Pacht, Kuehn, Bassett, & Nash, 1973;Poythress, 1977;Rice, 1961;Schofield, 1956;Schulman, 1973;Twardy & Siomopoulos, 1977; Washington v. United States; 1 Wolfgang, 1974;Ziskin, 1975). In addition, both lawyers and mental health professionals have offered commentary on tactics, strategies, and "art," regarding the presentation of expert testimony of a psychological nature (Brodsky & Robey, 1972;Gaines, 1973;Liebenson & Wepman, 1964;Pacht et al, 1973;Poythress, 1978;Wolfgang, 1974;Ziskin, 1975;Brodsky, Note 1).…”

Jurors' evaluation and utilization of expert psychiatric testimony / by Gary N. Slutzky.

“…In contrast, psychiatry was believed to possess a body of knowledge sufficiently unfamiliar to the layman, so therefore opinions and testimony by a psychiatrist would aid the jury. In other cases it was held that while psychology was a proper subject matter for expert testimony, only medical training could give one the requisite understanding and skill in the subject matter to insure that the opinions would have reasonable validity (Pacht et al, 1973).…”