When Can Forensic Psychologists Comment on the Credibility of Criminal Defendants?

Roberto Flores de Apodaca, Lauren P. Stevens, Brendon T. Blake

Abstract


Forensic psychological examiners are often confronted with assessments in the guilt phase of criminal cases in which a Defendant denies his/her charged conduct, but the existing evidence clearly contradicts their account. This happens often in cases involving charges of violence, sex offending and or substance abuse (Langton, Barbaree, Harkins, Arenovich, McNamee & Peacock, 2008). What is the proper role of the examiner in such instances?; granting the benefit of the doubt and accepting the Defendant’s account, using the one contained in the differing evidence, or making an independent judgment about which is more likely to be true? Does accepting any version mean the expert is offering an opinion on the Ultimate Issue in the case, and encroaching on the role of the Trier of Fact? The Federal Rules of Evidence (FREE) dictate that judgments about Ultimate Issues belong solely to the Trier of Fact, yet the DSM-5 Manual (APA, 2013) instructs us to consider Malingering in every forensic situation; i.e. is the Defendant being honest about his mental state, and by implication, his/her credibility? 

Our recommendation is that examiners offer no opinions about which conflicting version in a criminal case is the more credible during the guilt phase, and instead, offer “if, then” assessments about a Defendant’s propensity for violence or sexual offending; i.e. if the charges are true, then s/he poses certain levels of risk going forward, for reasons detailed in the report. Such a stance avoids experts “taking sides” during the guilt phase of a case and allows them to fully inform the adversarial, legal process as it deliberates on possible Plea Bargains or Sentencing decisions. We argue that this impartial approach serves a useful function in legal proceedings while adhering to our Ethical Guidelines (APA, 2010).  


Keywords


Commenting on Credibility

Full Text:

PDF

References


American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychological Association, 1-15.

American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7-19.

Anderson, B. J. (2012). Recognizing character: A new perspective on character evidence. Yale Law Journal, 121(7), 1912-1968.

Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P., & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The witness credibility scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 28(6), 892-907.

Bryden, D. P. & Park, R. C. (1994). “Other crimes” evidence in sex offense cases. Minnesota Law Review, 78, 529-583.

Federal Rules of Evidence. (2014). Federal rules of evidence; 702 & 703. Federal Evidence Review.

Granhag, P. A., & Stromwall L. A. (2004). The detection of deception in forensic contexts. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Gutheil, T. G., & Simon, R. I. (2004). Avoiding bias in expert testimony: The general practice clinician stepping into the arena of forensic psychiatry must take care to maintain objectivity. Psychiatric Annals, 34(4), 260-270.

Hunt, J. S., & Budesheim, T. L. (2004). How jurors use and misuse character evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 89, No. 2, 347-371.

Langton, C., Barbaree, H., Harkins, L., Arenovich, T., McNamee, J. & Peacock, E. (2008). Denial and minimization among sexual offenders: Post treatment presentation and associated with sexual recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 69–98.

Meixner, J. B. (2012). Liar, liar, jury’s the trier? The future of neuroscience-based credibility assessment in the court. Northwestern University Law Review, 106(3), 1451-1488.

Neal, T. S., Guadagno, R. E., Eno, C. A., & Brodsky, S. L. (2012). Warmth and competence on the witness stand: Implications for the credibility of male and female expert witnesses. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 40(4), 488-497.

Packer, I. K., & Grisso, T. (2011). Specialty competencies in forensic psychology. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press

Richards, H.J., & Pai, S. (2003). Deception in prison assessment of substance abuse. Journal of Substance Abuse and Treatment, (24), 121–128.

Rickert, J. T. (2010). Denying Defendants the benefit of a reasonable doubt: Federal rule of evidence 609 and past sex crime convictions. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(1), 213-241.

Rogers, R. (2008). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Saltzburg, S. A., Martin, M. M., & Capra, D. J. (1998). Federal Rules of Evidence manual (7th Edition, Volume 1), Charlottesville, VA: LEXIS Law Publishing.

Sanchirico, C. (2001). Character evidence and the object of trial. Columbia Law Review, 101(6), 1227.

Slovenko, R. (2004). Testimony on credibility: A case analysis. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 32(2), 243-268.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18533/journal.v4i6.722

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




.............................................................................................................................

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

.............................................................................................................................

If you find difficulties in submitting manuscript please forward your doc file to support@theartsjournal.org. Our support team will assist you in submission process and other technical matters.

In order to get notifications on inbox please add theartsjournal.org in your email safe list.

Journal of Arts and Humanities (Print) ISSN:2167-9045

Journal of Arts and Humanities (Online) ISSN: 2167-9053

[Journal of Arts and Humanities previously published by MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, MD, USA. From February 2018 this journal is published by the LAR Center Press, OR, USA]