Collateral Consequences for Third-Party Interviewees in Forensic Contexts.

Collateral interviews can be an integral source of third-party information used in a range of forensic mental health assessments. Although family members and spouses often have the most knowledge about the evaluee, research suggests that they may also experience distress related to the legal proceedings. This article discusses the nature and purpose of collateral interviewing with close collateral contacts, comparing collateral interviews with direct interviews with evaluees. The secondary consequences of having a justice-involved family member are considered, including the possibility of vicarious trauma. Finally, the responsibilities of evaluators are considered, especially in the context of trauma-informed principles applied to collateral interviewing. Recommendations regarding consent, the use of empathy, and feedback to collateral are provided.

Trauma-Focused Mitigation Testimony in Capital Sentencing Hearings.

When capital trials of convicted defendants reach the sentencing phase, forensic mental health experts often testify as part of mitigation evidence. Three aspects of such testimony hold particular promise. First, developmental traumas in the lives of the defendants are especially well conceptualized in terms of complex posttraumatic stress disorder, as described in the ICD-11. Second, Cunningham's framework, which critically examines the impact of harmful and protective factors over the course of a defendant's development, allows for an examination of moral culpability apart from legal culpability. Third, specific training on trauma and its effects on personality and psychopathology allows forensic mental health professionals to more skillfully complete trauma mitigation evaluations.

The Gold Standard and the Pyrite Principle: Toward a Supplemental Frame of Reference.

In medicine and social sciences, the phrase "gold standard" is often used to characterize an object or procedure described as unequivocally the best in its genre, against which all others should be compared. Examples of this usage are readily available in rigorously peer-reviewed publications, touted by test publishers, and appear in descriptions of methodologies by social science researchers. The phrase does not accurately describe commonly accepted measures, tests, and instruments. Instead, the descriptor can be ambiguous and misleading. This paper presents an overview of the history of the gold standard and its current applications to medicine and the social sciences. We question the use of the phrase "the gold standard" and suggest the additional operational use of a "pyrite principle" as a less presumptuous frame of reference. In thinking about validity and standards, the pyrite principle permits an understanding of standards as authoritative rather than fixed constructs in behavioral and health sciences.

Distractions in Forensic Evaluations.

Although test manuals and professional guidelines universally specify that forensic assessments should take place in quiet, private, and distraction-free environments, such absences of distractions are rare in jail and prison settings. In this article, four aspects of this problem are examined. First, compelling examples of noise and distractions are described to give a sense of the nature of the problem. Second, the portions of guidelines from the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law and the American Psychological Association regarding distractions are presented, along with associated excerpts from test manuals and books. Third, related research findings about the effects of distractions are explored. Finally, overall perspectives of the problem are presented, with special attention given to methods of reporting and managing distractions, examinee habituation, examiner distraction, and ways of conceptualizing evaluation tasks in high-distraction environments.

Medication state at the time of the offense: Medication noncompliance, insight and criminal responsibility.

This study used a mixed quantitative-qualitative methodology to examine whether mock jurors considered a defendant's meta-responsibility - specifically, the defendant's medication noncompliance and degree of insight into his/her schizophrenia - when determining the person's criminal responsibility. The degree of expert witness explanation regarding these factors was also varied. Participants (n = 173) were grouped into 30 juries, randomized across five conditions, and shown mock testimony and attorney arguments based on a real not guilty by reason of insanity court case. Linear mixed-modeling analysis showed that manipulations of medication compliance, insight, and expert testimony elaboration did not predict differential verdict and meta-responsibility outcomes. Nevertheless, qualitative exploration of focus groups from five juries (n = 29) indicated that participants across groups strongly considered meta-responsibility, but did so in a way that, along with a host of other considerations, suggested mock jurors were unable and/or unwilling to follow their duties as the triers of fact. Implications for legal participants, expert witnesses, and researchers are discussed.

I'll See You in Court Again: Psychopathology and Hyperlitigious Litigants.

Persistent litigation is a problem in many legal jurisdictions and is costly at individual and systemic levels. This phenomenon is referred to as "querulous" behavior in psychiatric literature, whereas legal discourse refers to it as "vexatious litigation." We refer to this phenomenon as "hyperlitigious behavior" and those who engage in these actions as "hyperlitigious litigants." Hyperlitigious litigants and hyperlitigious behavior were once the focus of a considerable amount of psychiatric literature, but research devoted to these topics has declined over the past half century. A review of the published literature on hyperlitigious behavior in European and English-speaking countries highlights geographic differences in the conceptualization and management of this behavior. We provide an alternative framework to consider the motivation to engage in hyperlitigious behavior and suggest three strategies for mental health professionals who interact with these individuals. Finally, we call for a revival of discussions and research within the English-speaking psychiatric community to facilitate more informed decisions regarding the management and treatment of hyperlitigious behavior.

Thin slice expert testimony and mock trial deliberations.

This study examined impressions of expert witness testimony in a not guilty by reason of insanity defense on two outcomes: witness's credibility and verdict. Borrowing in part from the "thin slice" methodology, we assessed outcomes in a 2 (deliberating vs. non-deliberating jurors) × 3 (length of videotaped testimony) between-subjects design. In 30 mock juries, 188 participants viewed the testimony by a forensic psychologist; then half of the juries deliberated. Thinner slices of the testimony were defined by the lower (30s long) and upper (5 min long) temporal bounds in the literature. The third, fuller testimony condition was 10 min long and served as the accuracy marker for the shorter sliced exposures. We aimed to explore potential consequences to jurors relying on impressions of the expert, and his or her opinion, and to test that effect post deliberation. Accounting for deliberation, brief impressions of expert credibility generally exerted a similar influence on credibility to fuller considerations. The essential finding was that a two-way interaction emerged from time slice and deliberation on verdict for jurors in the 30s condition. Overall, predictive accuracy was found in the 5 min slice, yet accuracy was not supported in the predictions based on the shortest slice. Individually-formed impressions are not likely to translate to the verdict ballot post-deliberation. Instead, brief impressions are likely to be heavily influenced by deliberation. Implications for understanding how impression-based testimony evaluations translate from the jury box to the deliberation room are discussed.

Unloading the hired gun: Inoculation effects in expert witness testimony.

The current study investigated the efficacy of inoculation as a trial strategy designed to counter mock jurors' perceptions that an expert is a hired gun in a criminal trial. The effect of narrative and fragmented expert responses to cross-examination questions was also examined. The significant results were that not using inoculation led to higher ratings of expert knowledge compared to other conditions. Response style did not make a difference in the criminal setting. Implications of these results regarding "hired gun" expert witnesses and courtroom persuasion are discussed.

Differences in expert witness knowledge: do mock jurors notice and does it matter?

The knowledge of experts presumably affects their credibility and the degree to which the trier of fact agrees with them. However, specific effects of demonstrated knowledge are largely unknown. In this experiment, we manipulated a forensic expert's level of knowledge in a mock-trial paradigm. We tested the influence of low versus high expert knowledge on mock juror perceptions of expert credibility, on agreement with the expert, and on sentencing. We also tested expert gender as a potential moderator. Knowledge effects were statistically significant; however, these differences carried little practical utility in predicting mock jurors' ultimate decisions. Contrary to the hypotheses that high knowledge would yield increased credibility and agreement, knowledge manipulations influenced only perceived expert likeability. The low-knowledge expert was perceived as more likeable than the high-knowledge counterpart, a paradoxical finding. No significant differences across expert gender were found. Implications for conceptualizing expert witness knowledge and credibility and their potential effects on juror decision-making are discussed.

Assertive women as expert witnesses: a study of assertive and defensive responses in male and female experts.

This investigation of expert witness gender used scenarios addressing threats to the expert, sexuality, parenting by the expert, and lying, and in which intrusive and non-intrusive gender cross-examinations were presented to 352 mock jurors. Male and female experts were matched carefully on attractiveness and other social desirability dimensions. In half of the situations the expert witnesses replied with defensive answers, and in the other half, they replied assertively. The assertive responses were found to be significantly more effective on a number of dependent measures, including perceived credibility. In results consistent with other studies, the male experts were evaluated more positively than the female experts. Sexism and other attitudes of the mock jurors were unrelated to credibility and expert gender. The results are discussed in the context of managing aggressive cross-examinations, role demands for women in the courtroom, and methodological approaches to the study of expert witness gender.

Gender, smiling, and witness credibility in actual trials.

It has been acknowledged that females exhibit more smiling behaviors than males, but there has been little attention to this gender difference in the courtroom. Although both male and female witnesses exhibit smiling behaviors, there has been no research examining the subsequent effect of gender and smiling on witness credibility. This study used naturalistic observation to examine smiling behaviors and credibility in actual witnesses testifying in court. Raters assessed the smiling behaviors and credibility (as measured by the Witness Credibility Scale) of 32 male and female witnesses testifying in trials in a mid-sized Southern city. "Credibility raters" rated the perceived likeability, trustworthiness, confidence, knowledge, and overall credibility of the witnesses using the Witness Credibility Scale. "Smile raters" noted smiling frequency and types, including speaking/expressive and listening/receptive smiles. Gender was found to affect perceived trustworthiness ratings, in which male witnesses were seen as more trustworthy than female witnesses. No significant differences were found in the smiling frequency for male and female witnesses. However, the presence of smiling was found to contribute to perceived likeability of a witness. Smiling female witnesses were found to be more likeable than smiling male and non-smiling female witnesses.

Empathy in forensic evaluations: a systematic reconsideration.

This paper reexamines the Shuman seminal paper arguing against empathic behaviors in forensic evaluations. Shuman concluded that empathy by examiners seduces evaluees into believing a therapeutic relationship exists. We reconsider empathy as an element of rapport and a helpful supplement in a successful assessment. Actively avoiding empathy could lead to cold and callous examiner self-presentation, which may in turn produce biased and negative results. In this paper we assert that ethical forensic professionals may use moderate empathy during an assessment. Examiners should consider it not as a component of subjectivity and pseudotherapy, but rather as a potentially useful tool for effective assessments.

Warmth and competence on the witness stand: implications for the credibility of male and female expert witnesses.

In this study, we examined how manipulations of likeability and knowledge affected mock jurors' perceptions of female and male expert witness credibility (n = 290). Our findings extend the person-perception literature by demonstrating how warmth and competence overlap with existing conceptions of likeability and knowledge in the psycholegal domain. We found that experts high in likeability, knowledge, or both were perceived equally positively, regardless of gender, in a death penalty sentencing context. Gender differences emerged when the expert was low in likeability or knowledge. In these conditions the male expert was perceived more positively than the comparable female expert. Although intermediate judgments (e.g., perceptions of credibility) were affected by our manipulations, ultimate decisions (e.g., sentencing) were not. Implications for theory and practice are discussed.

Hypothetical constructs, hypothetical questions, and the expert witness.

Professor John Henry Wigmore in 1940 described the hypothetical question as an intolerable obstruction of truth. Since that time, the nature and application of the hypothetical question in the courtroom, as well as responses to this line of questioning during expert testimony, have been sources of controversy. Governed by legal philosophical foundations, the hypothetical construct addresses what there is, in a general sense, and what can or ought to be. Alexy (2004) has described the nature of legal philosophy as the epistemological question of what we can know. This article begins by examining the philosophical underpinnings, legal parameters, and teaching purposes of posing hypothetical queries. A social-psychological backdrop for the use of hypothetical questions is then discussed followed by a broader discussion of the hypothetical question's role in court procedures. This paper identifies hypothetical questions used in court as devices to elicit information, or as predictions that potentially change underlying factual interpretations of evidence. In particular, on cross examination hypothetical questions seek to make opposing experts assume facts that are incongruent with their conclusions or opinions. Sometimes in these situations, experts are led to re-evaluate opinions based on alternative understandings of events and behaviors. Thus, this paper's final aim is to explore a foundational understanding of hypothetical questions asked of expert witnesses with special reference to mental health issues. Options for responding to hypothetical questions on the stand are considered along the dimensions of assertiveness-passivity, compliance-resistance, and possible redefinitions of the hypothetical issues.

Defendant remorse, need for affect, and juror sentencing decisions.

Defendant remorse is generally accepted as a mitigating factor in capital murder sentencing in the legal system. The current study addressed whether verbal and nonverbal expressions of defendant remorse are perceived as remorseful by mock jurors. Moreover, this study investigated the associations of defendant behaviors and mock juror need for affect on sentencing decisions. Participants watched a video of a defendant depicting either high or low levels of verbal and nonverbal remorseful behavior. Results indicated that nonverbal behaviors were more important than verbal cues for perception of remorse. Incongruent verbal and nonverbal behavior, as well as mock juror willingness to approach emotional situations (i.e., high need for affect (NFA)) resulted in more lenient sentences for defendants. Implications for the remorse construct, for witness preparation, and for jury selection are discussed.

Risky business: Addressing the consequences of predicting violence.

Despite major advances in the prediction of violence and risk management, risk evaluations are necessarily imperfect. This article focuses on the role of the evaluator in such assessments and addresses the consequences incurred by clinicians involved in conducting risk assessments. We discuss the risks of overpredicting and underpredicting violence with respect to how these risks can influence an evaluator's opinion. Then, we review how law and psychology inform the clinician's work. Finally, in response to the compelling tendency toward overprediction of violence, we propose a preliminary self-assessment guide as a method of examining influences on the evaluator in assessing violence risk.