Expert psychiatric evidence in sexual misconduct cases before state medical boards.

The growing problem of physician sexual misconduct has captured the attention not only of the medical and legal communities, but of the public as well. State medical boards, administrative agencies with generous rules of evidence and varying levels of expertise, face the difficult task of responding to patients' allegations of physician sexual abuse. This Article, based in large part on the author's survey of current state medical board practice, reveals an increasing reliance on expert psychiatric testimony to explain the behavior of complainants and accused physicians. Drawing analogies from the use of psychiatric evidence in child sexual abuse cases, the author examines the factors that boards must consider in determining the admissibility of expert testimony in physician sexual misconduct cases, and calls upon states to establish clear evidentiary rules to govern the use of such testimony in administrative hearings.     

Impact of Defense-Only and Opposing Eyewitness Experts on Juror Judgments

Previous research shows that expert testimony on eyewitness memory influences mock-juror judgments. We examined the extent to which opposing expert testimony mitigates the impact of defense-only expert testimony. Participants (N = 497) viewed a video-taped trial involving an eyewitness identification and individually rendered verdicts and evaluated the evidence and the experts. We manipulated the Foils (unbiased vs. biased) and Instructions (unbiased vs. biased) of the lineup and Expert Testimony (no expert vs. defense-only expert vs. opposing experts). Expert testimony did not significantly influence juror judgments, but the opposing expert testimony diminished the credibility of the defense expert in the eyes of the jurors. Results point to the need for further research on conditions that qualify the impact of expert testimony.     

Qualifying the psychiatrist as a lay witness: a reaction to the American Psychiatric Association petition in Barefoot v. Estelle

Organized psychiatry has recently begun to define limits to expert testimony. The American Psychiatric Association filed an amicus brief in the case of Barefoot v. Estelle urging legal curtailment of psychiatric testimony as to future dangerousness and prohibition on Constitutional grounds of expert psychiatric testimony solely based on hypothetical data. The Supreme Court refused relief on both questions. Psychiatric testimony to ultimate questions at law is limited by the inherent contextual variables of psychiatric clinical and experimental knowledge and practice. A forensic science model for psychiatric participation with explicit psychiatrically defined limitations is proposed using competence to stand trial as an example.     

The Impact of Negative Forensic Evidence on Mock Jurors’ Perceptions of a Trial of Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assault

Legal concerns with regard to the adverse impact of a negative toxicological screening for date-rape drugs in a case of drug-facilitated sexual assault (DFSA) were the focus of a recent Canadian case (R. v. Alouache, 2003). To assess the impact of a negative forensic report, as well as the impact of expert testimony explaining the many factors that may contribute to a negative outcome, participants (N=171) received a written trial stimulus in which the forensic evidence (negative report, negative report plus expert testimony, no negative report and no expert testimony control) and the complainant's beverage consumption (alcohol, cola) were systematically varied. Results indicate that a negative finding in the absence of expert testimony produced greater verdict leniency and more favourable evaluations of the defendant's case. In contrast, no differences were found between the case in which the expert testified and a case in which the negative report and expert testimony were omitted.

---

     

Expert Testimony Regarding Child Witnesses: Does It Sensitize Jurors to Forensic Interview Quality?

Does expert testimony on forensic interviews with children help adults distinguish between poorly conducted and well-conducted interviews? This study evaluates the effects of social framework expert testimony regarding child witnesses in a case involving allegations of child sexual abuse. A 2 (Expert Testimony: present or absent) × 3 (Child Forensic Interview Quality: poor, typical, or good) × 2 (Child’s Age: 4- or 10-year-old) factorial design was used to examine whether expert testimony is prejudicial or beneficial to jurors (N = 463). The results revealed that, without expert testimony, mock jurors did not consider the forensic interview quality when reaching a verdict. However, with expert testimony, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts if the interview quality was good versus poor. Further expert testimony increased mock jurors’ knowledge about child witnesses. These findings suggest that expert testimony related to the impact of interview techniques on the reliability of children’s reports may assist fact-finders in evaluating child abuse cases.     

Posttraumatic stress disorder in tort actions: forensic minefield

The authors discuss posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) as a basis for personal injury litigation. Three case examples raise issues related to: (1) the controversy surrounding expansion of tort liability, (2) the courtroom use of psychiatric nomenclature as represented in the DSM (e.g., PTSD), and (3) ethical concerns regarding psychiatric expert witnesses. Psychiatrists became easy targets when problems related to personal injury "stress" cases developed. A careful analysis, however, demonstrates that the issues are complex and multifaceted. For example, tort liability expansion was primarily instituted to compel a greater provision of liability insurance, not to reward stress claims. The increasing use of psychiatry's DSM in the courtroom has occurred despite explicit precautions against forensic application. Finally, the need for psychiatric expert witnesses has increased because courts have gradually usurped some psychiatric clinical prerogatives and because there has been a trend toward greater consideration of emotional pain and suffering. Although psychiatric expert witnesses have not been beyond reproach, critics have attempted to impeach the entire psychiatric profession for the questionable actions of the minority. The authors provide a detailed analysis of current problems, offer suggestions for improvement, and provide an educational counterpoint to the "hysterical invective" that often greets psychiatric testimony.     

The impact of general versus specific expert testimonyand eyewitness confidence upon mock juror judgment

Subjects (n=128) initially viewed an eyewitness of high or low confidence. Subsequently, participants viewed a psychologist who gave either espert testimony on the unreliability of eyewitness identification, specific expert testimony, or no expert (control) testimony. Subjects viewing expert testimony believed the eyewitness identified the gunman significantly less often, gave the defendant lower guilt ratings, estimated a lower general percentage of correct identifications under similar circumstances, estimated a lower percentage of general accurate eyewitness testimony, and gave significantly lower ratings to the belief that one can generally tell from eyewitness confidence whether an eyewitness is accurate than subjects in control conditions. Significant differences were also obtained between general and specific expert testimony. Participants viewing specific expert testimony estimated lower general percentages of correct identifications under the circumstances of the crime and reported relying more upon the psychologist's testimony than subjects viewing general expert testimony. Additionally, subjects viewing general expert testimony had significantly less confidence in their gunman vs. innocent person decision than subjects in specific testimony or control conditions. Subjects who viewed the high confidence eyewitness decided that the eyewitness correctly identified the gunman more often, gave the defendant higher guilt ratings, and estimated the general percentage of accurate eyewitness testimony to be significantly higher than jurors in low eyewitness confidence groups. The finding that jurors may continue to rely on eyewitness confidence to gauge the accuracy of the witness even after viewing expert testimony is discussed.     

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WITH PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME

Expert testimony on unsubstantiated social science syndromes such as the Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) has been increasingly admitted in courtrooms across the United States. This is a problem because a trier of fact is making a determination based on theories that are inaccurate or incorrect. To remedy this, the standards of admissibility for expert testimony must be heightened. The broad discretion given to trial judges in determining admissibility should be reevaluated and a new rule of evidence for social science testimony should be adopted.     

Chapter 2: The Legal Position and Organizational Forms of Forensic Psychiatric Expert Examination

The practical task of forensic psychiatry, which is one of the subdivisions of psychiatry, is to give an expert evaluation, on assignment from investigatory agencies and courts, and to devise and recommend measures for the prevention of socially dangerous acts by the mentally ill. Forensic psychiatric expert examination, like forensic medical, criminal, or any other type of expert examination, aids agencies of justice in establishing the facts in a case. Forensic psychiatric expert examination is called upon to assist the investigator and the court in determining whether an individual is a criminal or a legally irresponsible, mentally ill person; whether a person sentenced to a prison term should, because of mental illness, be released before his time is served; whether the investigator and the court may pursue the interrogation of a witness or victim with mental disorders, and whether the testimony of such persons may be used as court evidence. Such an expert examination is necessary in a civil suit in deciding the question of an individual's competence.     

论法医学鉴定人出庭作证

本文探讨法庭作证的价值、方法。着重研究了法医学鉴定人的素质与鉴定结论的价值。最后息结指出只有高素质的法医学鉴定人才能承担新世纪的鉴定重任。使法庭作证永远走向成功。     

Juror common understanding and the admissibility of rape trauma syndrome evidence in court

Expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome has been used in sexual assault cases to corroborate the victim's complaint and to educate the jury. One of the primary arguments against the admissibility of this testimony is that it is not helpful because most jurors are adequately informed about rape and rape victim behavior. To test this assumption, a Sexual Assault Questionnaire (SAQ) was administered to experts on rape and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and two nonexpert comparison groups. Results indicated that the nonexperts were not well informed on many rape-related issues and were significantly less knowledgeable than the expert groups. The data also showed considerable consensus among the experts about the current scientific database on rape trauma. The implications of these results for the use of expert psychological testimony on rape trauma syndrome in court are discussed.     

Barring ultimate issue testimony

This research focuses on one of the major changes wrought by the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: the exclusion of expert mental health testimony on the “ultimate issue,” that is, testimony specifically addressing the expert's opinion that the defendant is sane or insane. Subjects in this research were presented with 1 of 10 variants of an insanity case in which experts testified for the defense, prosecution, both, or neither. The testimony was at one of three levels: diagnostic only, penultimate issue, or ultimate issue. Results showed that level of testimony had no effect on the verdict pattern. There was evidence to suggest that this effect may occur because jurors infer, and/or mistakenly recall, higher levels of expert testimony than was actually presented to them. In addition, general and specific constructs (Finkel & Handel, 1989) that predict verdict yieldedR ² values from .500 to .668 and were not significantly affected by the level of expert testimony. Implications of these findings are discussed.     

Complex scientific testimony: How do jurors make decisions?

Critics of the civil jury system question whether jurors can adequately evaluate complex expert testimony. Based on current models of research in persuasion, we hypothesized that when expert testimony is complex, factors other than content will influence persuasion. Participants, serving as mock jurors, watched a videotaped trial in which two scientists provided evidence on whether PCBs could have caused a plaintiff's illness. The complexity of the expert's testimony and the strength of the expert's credentials were varied in a 2×2 factorial design. After watching the videotape, mock jurors rendered a verdict and completed a number of attitude measures related to the trial. Overall, consistent with our prediction, we found that jurors were more persuaded by a highly expert witness than by a less expert witness, but only when the testimony was highly complex. When the testimony was less complex, jurors relied primarily on the content of that testimony, and witness credentials had little impact on the persuasiveness of the message.     

Expert Testimony Pertaining to Battered Woman Syndrome: Its Impact on Jurors' Decisions

Participants (N = 200) were presented with a criminal homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Within the trial, both the response history (passive, active) and presence of expert testimony pertaining to battered woman syndrome (present, absent) were systematically varied. As well, half of the participants in each of these conditions were provided with a nullification instruction informing them that they were free to disregard the law and acquit should a strict application of the law result in an unjust verdict. Results indicated that, compared to the passive response condition, the mock jurors were no less receptive to the expert testimony in the active response condition. The impact of the testimony on participants' verdicts, however, was moderated by the nullification instruction. That is, although the presence of the testimony did result in greater verdict leniency, this only occurred when the mock jurors had been released from a strict application of the law. The implications of these findings are discussed.     

Expert psychological testimony

Experimental psychologists increasingly are asked to give expert testimony in court, especially with regard to issues of eyewitness reliability. Whether or not experimental psychologists should give expert testimony on these matters is a controversial issue. The empirical literature suggests that potential jurors do not have a good understanding of the variables influencing eyewitness accuracy and that they cannot discriminate adequately between accurate and false eyewitness identification testimony. Experiments using expert testimony as a treatment variable, however, have not made a definitive case that expert testimony can benefit trial outcomes. The question of whether or not to give expert testimony must be broadened to consider not only the effects on verdicts but also the effects of expert testimony on the process by which verdicts are reached, the practices of police in subsequent investigations, the public's view of psychology, the practices of judges in subsequent cases, and the interaction between expert testimony and research activities.     

Trials of battered women who kill: the impact of alternative forms of expert evidence

The introduction of battered woman syndrome testimony in trials of battered women who have killed has stirred considerable debate within the psycholegal community. Much of the controversy stems from the testimony's focus on the woman's passivity, as well as its partrayal of a single profile of battered women. In light of these concerns, proposals to alter the content of the testimony (e.g., dropping the syndrome terminology, focus on battered women's social reality as opposed to their psychological state and reactions) have surfaced. In the present research both the woman's prior response history (passive, active) and the presence of expert testimony (battered woman syndrome, social agency, no expert control) were manipulated in a homicide trial involving a battered woman who had killed her abuser. Overall, participants, drawn from both a university (N=195) and a nonuniversity setting (N=202), rendered more lenient verdicts and provided more favorable evaluations of the defendant's claim of self defense in the presence of expert testimony (either form) compared to a no expert control. Further, these effects were more pronounced for the student than the nonstudent sample. Implications of these findings for the use of expert evidence pertaining to battered women are discussed.     

Expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases

We presented participants with syndromal, witness credibility, or anatomically detailed doll evidence to determine (a) whether these different types of expert evidence exert differential influence on participants' judgments and (b) whether the influence of this evidence could be better explained by the relative scientific status or the probabilistic qualities of the research presented. Additionally, we investigated whether a strong or weak cross-examination of the expert would be more successful in discrediting the information provided in the expert's testimony. Findings suggest that participants are less influenced by expert testimony based on probability data (i.e., syndromal evidence) than by expert testimony based on case history data (i.e., credibility of anatomically detailed doll evidence). Participant responses did not differ as a function of the strength of the cross-examination of the expert. As expected, women were more likely to respond in a pro-prosecution direction than were men. Implications for the use of expert evidence in child sexual abuse cases are discussed.