The truth and nothing but the truth: court-appointed forensic experts’ experience with testifying and their perceptions of legal actors in criminal courts

Grøndahl, Pål; Stridbeck, Ulf; Grønnerød, Cato

doi:10.1080/14789949.2013.771278

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The survey was developed on the basis of the questionnaire used by Leslie et al (2007), and modified and extended to fit the Norwegian criminal court system. The data collection for the present and our previous study targeting the experts (Grøndahl et al, 2013) ran concurrently.…”

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study found that court professionals do not always know what kind of competence psychologists possess, and were often critical of their contributions (Allan & Louw, ). In our previous study, we found no differences between psychologists and psychiatrists in how they evaluated their experiences in court (Grøndahl et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Some studies have found that experts are quite satisfied with their own work in court (Campbell et al, 2007;Dixit-Brunet, 2006;Grøndahl, Stridbeck, & Grønnerød, 2013). They also reported at least some problematic aspects of communication with court professionals, but how do the court professionals view the experts?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Forensic psychiatric experts under the legal microscope

Grønnerød

Grøndahl²,

Stridbeck

2013

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. Methods The participants filled in an online survey with ratings and open‐ended questions. Results Their experience was fairly limited, but the general impression was one of overall satisfaction with the experts. Experience was not only valued but also clarity in language and presentation were important, together with verifiability and thoroughness. The ability or willingness to express doubt was also emphasized. In addition, a significant proportion felt they had observed differences between psychologists and psychiatrists, and they preferred psychiatrists based on a perception of higher professional skills. Conclusions Despite media uproars after controversial cases, the Norwegian system of court‐appointed experts received a positive review from the legal professionals; they report an overall positive experience with forensic psychiatric experts.

show abstract

Section: Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Forensic psychiatric experts under the legal microscope

Grønnerød

Grøndahl²,

Stridbeck

2013

Legal Criminol Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Resolving cognitive dissonance in the above manner is consistent with confirmation bias, the tendency to search for or interpret information in a manner consistent with prior beliefs and attitudes (Jonas et al, 2001;Lundgren & Prislin, 1998;Wason & Johnson-Laird, 1972). The tendency to engage in confirmation bias can be exacerbated by multiple commitments (Joule & Azdia, 2003).…”

Section: Adversarial Allegiancementioning

confidence: 79%

“…Experts recommit to their opinion at each step. This escalating commitment may drive experts' opinions to become even stronger over time, as research suggests dissonance effects are additive and lead to increased confirmation bias (Jonas et al, 2001;Joule & Azdia, 2003). Thus, the adversarial system encourages experts to become more extreme in their opinions as they progress through a case.…”

Section: Adversarial Allegiancementioning

confidence: 99%

Testing the waters: An investigation of the impact of hot tubbing on experts from referral through testimony

Perillo¹,

Perillo²,

Despodova³

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The present research examined whether concurrent expert testimony, or hot tubbing, is able to reduce adversarial allegiance compared to traditional adversarial expert testimony. Hypotheses: We expected concurrent experts would display less adversarial allegiance over the course of a mock criminal responsibility evaluation, with case opinions converging between prosecution and defense witnesses. We expected adversarial experts would display escalating adversarial allegiance with increasingly divergent case opinions and that court-appointed experts’ opinions would remain stable over the evaluation. We also expected concurrent expert witnesses would produce more balanced expert reports and testimony than would adversarial experts. Method: Clinicians and advanced clinical doctoral students (N = 103) completed criminal responsibility evaluation training before conducting a mock criminal responsibility evaluation for the prosecution, defense, or the court. Half of the partisan experts followed traditional adversarial procedures and half followed a concurrent testimony process. Participants provided case perceptions at three time points: after initial evidence review, after completing expert report(s), and after testifying. Case perceptions included a dichotomous responsibility judgment, strength of responsibility ratings, and a cognitive dissonance measure. Results: Concurrent testimony did not eliminate adversarial allegiance. For perceptions of responsibility, there was no significant difference between adversarial and concurrent experts (ηp2 = .001), nor any change in participants’ ratings over time (ηp2 = .03); however, prosecution experts – across testimony types – rated the defendant as significantly more responsible compared to defense experts (ηp2 = .80). Concurrent and adversarial experts did not differ in the information provided in their expert reports and minimally differed in testimony content.Conclusions: Partisan experts showed adversarial allegiance regardless of expert testimony method, and we observed no attenuation of this bias over the course of the evaluation.

show abstract

The use of test instruments in forensic report writing – Explorative research in Flanders

Clercq¹,

Laenen

2019

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The truth and nothing but the truth: court-appointed forensic experts’ experience with testifying and their perceptions of legal actors in criminal courts

Cited by 6 publications

References 14 publications

Forensic psychiatric experts under the legal microscope

Forensic psychiatric experts under the legal microscope

Testing the waters: An investigation of the impact of hot tubbing on experts from referral through testimony

The use of test instruments in forensic report writing – Explorative research in Flanders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About