What judges and lawyers think about the testimony of mental health experts: a survey of the courts and bar.

The testimony of mental health experts is often important evidence considered by criminal courts in determining issues arising throughout the adjudicative process, but not all evidence provided by experts is equally valid or probative. Using a hypothetical insanity defense case, we compared the preferences of Virginia judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys for different types of forensic mental health evidence, including descriptive and diagnostic testimony, testimony about relevant research and actuarial data, and ultimate issue testimony. In addition, we determined their preferences for different types of mental health professionals. Four key findings emerged. First, many participants preferred that psychiatrists, rather than psychologists or other mental health professionals, conduct forensic evaluations for the court. Second, while participants were interested in most types of mental health evidence, they were primarily interested in clinical diagnosis, followed by an analysis of whether the condition met the relevant legal threshold, and an ultimate opinion on the legal issue. Third, participants were less interested in research or actuarial evidence. Fourth, participants differed in their evidentiary preferences in ways that reflect their respective roles in the adversary system. The findings suggest that while courts and attorneys find traditional clinical testimony useful in criminal cases, they also favor ultimate issue testimony, and view research data or statistically based information as less helpful. Mental health professionals should consider how to educate the courts and bar about the dangers inherent in over-reliance on the conclusory legal testimony of mental health experts, the utility of scientific data as such information becomes more routinely introduced as evidence at trial, and the expertise available from various mental health professionals.

Forensic mental health clinical evaluation: an analysis of interstate and intersystemic differences.

Forensic mental health evaluation systems have undergone major changes during the past two decades, and the variability of service delivery systems across states is significant. We compared assessments of competence to stand trial and criminal responsibility in three states with different systems for forensic mental health evaluations: Michigan, Ohio, and Virginia. Although all three states use comparable legal criteria to judge competence and criminal responsibility, we found large, statistically significant differences among the states in the proportion of defendants referred for evaluation who were assessed as incompetent or not criminally responsible. In addition, significant differences were found in the diagnostic and offense categories of defendants referred for evaluation. Our findings suggest that the structure of a system for providing forensic evaluation services may significantly affect both the group of individuals referred for evaluation as well as evaluation outcome.

Psychopathy in instrumental and reactive violent offenders.

Can violent offenders who commit acts of instrumental aggression for goal-oriented purposes such as robbery be distinguished from those who commit acts of reactive (or hostile) aggression in response to provocation? Because violent offenders often have a history of both instrumental and reactive aggression, this study distinguished between offenders with a history of at least 1 instrumental violent offense and offenders with a history of reactive violent offenses. Two studies tested the hypothesis that instrumental offenders would score higher than reactive offenders and nonviolent offenders on R. D. Hare's (1991) Psychopathy Checklist. The first study sample consisted of 106 violent and nonviolent offenders recruited from a medium-security correctional facility. The second study sample consisted of 50 violent offenders referred for pretrial forensic evaluation. In both samples, instrumental offenders could be reliably distinguished from reactive offenders on the basis of violent crime behavior and level of psychopathy. Group differences could not be attributed to participant age, race, length of incarceration, or extent of prior criminal record.

Forensic neuropsychology: a reply to the method skeptics.

Various critics or "method skeptics" have contended that clinical neuropsychology is not sufficiently developed as a science to be offered as evidence in legal or trial proceedings. The present article attempts to balance the extreme position of the method skeptics with an overview of legal and research data that support forensic applications of neuropsychology. It is suggested that clinical evidence can usefully inform legal decision making and that the modern trend has been for courts to be increasingly open to such expert testimony. The relevance of studies of clinical judgement, experience, and actuarial prediction is discussed, and neuropsychological assessment validity is specifically addressed. It is concluded that the arguments of the method skeptics should guide future research and caution forensic neuropsychologists, but that a retreat from the courtroom is unwarranted.

MMPI profiles of malingerers diagnosed in pretrial forensic evaluations.

The MMPI has several indices associated with exaggeration of symptomatology, but they have seldom been researched with actual malingering subjects. Based upon interview behavior during pretrial forensic evaluations, samples of malingering (n = 18), psychotic (n = 17), and nonpsychotic (n = 36) criminal defendants were assembled for the present study. Both the malingerers and the psychotics either were untestable or produced incomplete or random MMPIs in about 50% of the cases. Comparisons of remaining profiles revealed significant differences between malingerers and other groups on several MMPI scales and F-K index. Discriminant analysis accurately classified malingerers and psychotics on the basis of MMPI variables. The MMPI may have considerable utility to detect malingering when subjects cooperate with testing.