The Griffiths Question Map: A Forensic Tool For Expert Witnesses’ Assessments of Witnesses and Victims’ Statements

Expert witnesses are sometimes asked to assess the reliability of young witnesses and victims’ statements because of their high susceptibility to memory biases. This technical note aims to highlight the relevance of the Griffiths Question Map (GQM) as a professional forensic tool to improve expert witnesses’ assessments of young witnesses and victims’ testimonies. To do so, this innovative question type assessment grid was used to proceed to an in‐depth analysis of the interview of an alleged 13‐year‐old victim of a sexual assault and two rapes. Overall, the GQM stressed how the interview was mainly conducted in an inappropriate manner. The results are examined with regard to scientific knowledge on young witnesses and victims’ memory. Finally, it is argued that expert witnesses in inquisitorial systems might use the GQM while encountering difficulties to fulfill the legal standards for expert evidence in adversarial systems because of the lack of studies regarding its reliability.     

中美司法精神病学鉴定制度比较

拥有专门知识的人才进入司法程序,凭其专业知识对专门技术问题发表意见。这样的人在大陆法系被称为鉴定人,在英美法系则被称为专家证人,我国使用鉴定人称谓。本文从司法鉴定管理体制、司法鉴定人制度、司法鉴定启动制度及司法鉴定程序制度等方面对中美两国司法精神病学的司法鉴定制度进行比较。最后简要介绍两个特殊的问题:最终争论和结论质证。     

Carney v Newton: expert evidence about the standard of clinical notes

In Carney v Newton [2006] TASSC 4 the Tasmanian Supreme Court heard a claim that the defendant breached his duty of care by failing to properly diagnose and treat a node positive carcinoma in the plaintiff's breast tissue. At trial, argument turned on the actual dialogue that took place during the initial consultation, with significant reliance on the clinical notes of the defendant. The court gave considerable weight to "expert" witnesses in ascertaining the acceptability of the defendant's conduct concerning the maintenance and interpretation of his clinical notes. This raises important questions in relation to proof of quality of medical records as part of the current professional standard of care, as modified by recent legislation in most jurisdictions.     

Expert witnesses,nonexpert witnesses,and nonwitness experts

The role and responsibilities of the expert winness is a controversial subject. This article emphasizes the legal rules (of evidence and procedure) governing the expert and the policy grounds on which they rest. As the law's policies for the use of expertise shift from stage as stage as litigation progresses, or differ between categories of legal cases (criminal vs. civil), or with a party's use of an expert (from being a nonwitness consultant to an expert witness at trial), the law expects the role of the expert to be reshaped accordingly. On some important issues, the law sends contradictory messages: What its formal rules announce is at war with its structure and practices. And these, in turn, sometimes are in tension with the demands of the expert's professional ethical codes. On other matters of importance to experts, the law is silent, because the rules were motivated by a need to control the behavior of parties and lawyers, not experts. The result of all this is to present those who would be conscientious expert witnesses with a need to resolve nearly impossible role conflicts and ethical dilemmas.American Psychology-Law Society, delivered at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association. New Orleans, August, 1989. That address was titled Expert Witnesses: Psychology and Beyond     

刑事程序中法官与鉴定人事实认知的冲突

当今时代科技与法律的关系尤为密切,在刑事诉讼中表现为具备最终事实认定权的法官日益面临着鉴定人科技知识的挑战,因而其事实认知权存在被分享的危险.对于这一问题人们关注甚少,面对该困境法官应通过如下策略对之回应:对鉴定人可靠性进行审查;加快鉴定人及其机构之间的竞争、进行适当的责任追究来保证鉴定人作出可靠的鉴定结论;通过程序处理疑难的科学鉴定.     

鉴定人出庭质证规则的比较分析

我国法律已经确立了鉴定人出庭接受质证的原则,但由于缺乏具体的规定,实践中鉴定人不出庭的现象十分普遍,对于司法公正产生了不利的影响。为此,应借鉴两大法系的立法,确立鉴定人出庭、陈述、质证内容以及专家辅助人参与质证等,并建议修改民事诉讼法时予以体现。     

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.     

Biases in Judging Victims and Suspects Whose Statements Are Inconsistent

In this commentary, we point to similarities in characteristics of suspect and victim/witness statements and the underlying motivations of these individuals. Despite the similarities, there are differences in how such statements are evaluated by fact-finders and investigators. Retractions, for example, cast serious doubt on the credibility of victims/witnesses but appear not to diminish the power of confessions. Investigators need to recognize the wide range of motivations behind statements made to the authorities and be mindful of biased dispositions to doubt victims and believe confessors, especially when their statements are inconsistent or retracted. An investigative process that was entirely transparent would help ensure that inconsistencies and retractions, whether in statements from victims, witnesses, or suspects, are viewed in the context of other statements and eliciting circumstances.     

Error in expert assessment

On the basis of the statutory code of physicians' duties in Poland, the authors discuss a new category of professional error, namely "error in expert assessment." Expert assessment comprises: Issue of certificates stating temporary inability to work (L-4 forms); Issue of certificates allocating patients to appropriate disability categories; Issue of certificates entitling patients to special services; Issue of certificates for legal purposes According to regulation any physician can be required to provide an expert assessment, because institutions requesting such an opinion refer to persons or institutions so as to obtain special information. In certain cases physicians may request to be released from this obligation. Nevertheless, if they accept it and then pass an erroneous opinion they may be liable to a charge of malpractice. The authors have pointed out that errors in expert assessment usually result from: Inadequate professional knowledge; Examination of the records with no clinical examination; Failure to take account of information included in the patient's file; Illogical or unjustified conclusions about the cause and result relationship. The most common errors in the formulation of expert assessments are: "Overdiagnosis" of the results of an accident; Unjustified statements that death has resulted from an accident or from bad working conditions in cases of death from natural causes; Incorrect reconstruction of the events leading up to an accident or of the mechanism of injuries.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Forensic Psychological Expertise in the Wake of Daubert

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. established guidelines for screening the admissibility of scientific evidence and overruled the Frye general acceptance doctrine. Guidelines more akin to those advocated by psychologists to assess the trustworthiness of the expert testimony were established in light of the Federal Rules of Evidence on the reliability, relevance, and prejudicial or probative nature of the information. Forensic psychological experts will have to be explicit about the scientific foundations of their opinions. The more flexible formula for the admission of scientific evidence may exert greater quality control than the Frye test, and enhance the relationship of psychology and law by eliminating some sources of controversy within the professional community over expert witnesses. Research needs flowing from the new standards are identified. Administrative Judge with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in Southern California, and a Mediator and Arbitrator with Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services/Endispute     

Sexual Harassment, PTSD, and Criterion A: If It Walks Like a Duck …

Sexual harassment and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are two topics that generate heated debate in the social science literature. When the two are combined in the civil litigation context, the intensity of the debate is heightened by the adversarial context of the courts. The current paper examines research on both sexual harassment and PTSD separately, before addressing the issues that arise for psychologists and psychiatrists who serve as expert witnesses in sexual harassment litigation. Proposed resolutions of controversies are offered that attempt to expand the knowledge base for expert witnesses on the topic of sexual harassment as well as work within the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association 2000) framework of PTSD.     

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.     

Professional disciplinary proceedings against expert medical witnesses

Witnesses in legal proceedings are protected from civil liability based on their evidence. This immunity is founded on public policy considerations, particularly the belief that witnesses would be less willing to provide full and frank evidence if they were at the risk of civil proceedings based on their evidence. But witness immunity now appears to be subject to an important qualification. The English Court of Appeal has confirmed that witness immunity does not prevent the commencement of professional disciplinary proceedings against an expert witness. In General Medical Council v Meadow [2006] EWCA 1390 the court upheld a disciplinary complaint made against an expert medical witness, even though the complaint was based on that doctor's witness evidence. The Court of Appeal reasoned that the underlying purpose of professional disciplinary proceedings, which is to protect the public, could sit comfortably with witness immunity. The result seems to be that people unhappy with witness evidence cannot sue the witness but can make a professional disciplinary complaint. This apparent gap in witness immunity is important to all professionals who might give evidence.     

从“科学的代言人”到“当事人的枪手”——专家证人历史沿革与我国现实考察

英美法系在很早以前就认识到了专家在审判中的重要作用，而具有偏向性专家证人则是对抗制的产物。在中世纪，专家是以陪审团成员或者法官顾问的身份出现在法庭上的，由法官进行引导和控制．以保证其中立性和公正性。16世纪，随着知情陪审团被不知情陪审团所替代，法院开始传唤专家出庭，就某个专业问题向陪审团提供意见和结论。到了18世纪．英美法系审判中对抗的因素越来越多．双方当事人开始传唤专家作为各自的证人出庭提供意见。但18世纪末19世纪初的专家证人并不具有偏向性。直到19世纪中期，专家证人开始为各自当事人的利益服务．在法庭上为就与案件事实相关的专门性问题提出自己的意见．现代意义上的专家证人产生。梳理英美法系专家证人的历史对我国司法鉴定制度改革具有重要的指导意义。我国现已全面确立专家辅助人制度．专家辅助人应当具有中立性．并需构建一系列的程序和制度对专家辅助人的中立性进行保障。     

论医疗纠纷诉讼中的证据协力义务

由于医疗活动的高度专业性，因而在医疗纠纷诉讼中存在证据偏在、医患武器不平等严重问题。证据协力义务是居于“准确”、“公正”、“和谐”、“效率”等的价值基础。共在医疗纠纷诉讼中的适用具有正当性。建议通过医疗机构的阐明病历义务，对证人、鉴定人违反证据协力义务的制裁，证人拒绝提供证言权等规范来弥补医疗纠纷诉讼中证据协力义务的结构性缺失，以增加医疗纠纷诉讼中证据协力义务规范的可预测性。     

Relevance of "psychopathy"-- concepts from the Hare measure for preventive detention

Preventive detention can be ordered, if a person falls back into crime repeatedly and shows a "disposition to commit substantial offences". In the trial and at subsequent points of time expert opinions supporting this personal disposition have to be obtained. However up to now it is not clear on which basis such statements should be made. On the basis of a retrospective investigation of the author's own expert opinions the paper discusses the relevance of Hare's psychopathy concept for opinions on criminal disposition.     

The biomedical researcher and subpoenas: judicial protection of confidential medical data

An increasing number of medical researchers are being subpoenaed to testify or to supply records in cases in which they have not agreed to become involved as expert witnesses. The researchers' published works are alleged to have formed the basis of the opinions of physicians testifying as expert witnesses in these cases. Although the courts usually protect confidential medical data, the considerable burden of quashing these subpoenas is still imposed upon researchers and their universities. This Article argues that courts should protect these research records from subpoenas.     

Expert evidence: a practical guide

Legal context: expert witnesses now take part in many IP disputesand both experts and practitioners need to know the rules anddecisions affecting them. Key Points: we consider admissability of expert evidence, howto find an expert, appointment, how to change an expert, theexpert's duties, conflicts and the dangers of using an expert.It stresses the importance of finding an expert who knows thefield, will stick to it and communicates well. It is key notoversell or tempt the expert to oversell the evidence. Practitionersshould stay within the procedural rules, as mistakes can affectthe value of otherwise sound evidence. Practical significance: expert evidence is often decisive. Gettingit wrong can present a significant problem. English judges arenot slow to criticise any failure to meet the very high standardsthey expect of expert witnesses.     

Expert evidence accountability: new developments and challenges

A series of developments in relation to the accountability of expert witnesses and the admissibility of their opinions is taking place. This extends to encroachments in the United Kingdom on expert witness immunity, the imposition of disciplinary liability for registered health practitioners in Australia and the United Kingdom, and recommendations from the United Kingdom Law Commission for a systematised procedure for reliability determination as a prerequisite for admissibility rulings. This combination of measures is indicative of international concern about the contemporary role of expert witnesses. It highlights the need for both empirical information about whether the anecdotal and experiential concerns about expert evidence are well-founded and for the provision of better and clearer guidance to experts and litigators alike about the underpinnings and methodologies that are permissible for admissible and probative expert opinions.