1 / 40

Psych Expert

Psych Expert. Cross Examination. Do Not Be AFRAID. Extra. Header. Pedophilia. 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (13 or under)

Télécharger la présentation

Psych Expert

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.


Presentation Transcript

  1. Psych Expert • Cross Examination Do Not Be AFRAID

  2. Extra Header Pedophilia • 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child (13 or under) • These urges cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning • The person is at least 16 and 5 or more years older than child Footer

  3. Extra Header • A psychiatrist, “if (s)he is scrupulously honest,” when asked to describe the “manner in which the (defendant’s mental) abnormality affected those mental and emotional processes relevant to the criminal act, “will limit himself to a statement along these lines: • “the abnormality has substantially affected his mental or emotional processes in ways which I find difficult to understand and explain to you and his has possibly, but maybe not, substantially affected his behavior controls in ways which could be, but are not necessarily, relevant to the criminal act of which he is accused...” • Diamond, From Durham to Brawner: A Futile Journey, Wash. Univ. Law Quarterly, Vol. 1973: 109, at 114. Footer

  4. Extra Header Rule 704 • No expert with respect to the mental state of condition of a defendant ...may state an opinion or inference as to whether the defendant did or did not have the mental state or condition constituting an element of the crime charged or of a defense thereto. Those matters are for the trier of fact. SURE Footer

  5. Extra Header Defense Psych Expert • Not NEUTRAL • Pay Little Attention to TRUE facts • Benignly or purposefully ignore the truth • NOT SCIENTIFIC Footer

  6. Extra Header Defense Psych Expert • Opinion is just that, theirs alone • Psychiatry and Psychology is NOT science • Psych diagnoses are subjective • Psych diagnoses are speculative • Psych diagnoses are inherently unreliable Footer

  7. Extra Header Cross Examination • Preparation • Psych formulations is art, not science • Experts cannot reliably diagnose current mental illness • Retrospective diagnosis almost impossible • NO SCIENTIFIC TEST to demonstrate competency/sanity/mental illness Footer

  8. Extra Header Required Reading • Ziskin and Faust, Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony, 4th Edition (1988 Law and Psychology Press.) • T.Szaz, Myth of Mental Illnes (1974)Harper and Row • Ennis and Litwak, Flipping Coins in the Courtroom (1964, 62 Cal.Law Review p.693 • D. Rosenhan, “On Being Sane in Insane Places, (1973, Science, Vol.17 and 13 Santa Clara Law Review) • R. Rogers, Clinical Assessment of Malingering and Deception (1988 The Guilford Press) • S. Brodsky, Testifying in Court (Guidelines for the Expert Wit) APA 1991 must read!! Tells experts how to testify! Footer

  9. Extra Header Required Reading • H. Kutchins and Kirk, Making us Crazy-DSM The psychiatric Bible and creation of Mental Disorders (1997 The Free Press) • M. Hagen, Whores of the Court: THe fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice (1997, Regan Books) • O’Hare, Distrubing World of Psychopaths among us. • DSM IV • R. Slovenko, Psychiatry and Law, Little, Brown and Co. 1973, p. 33 • Scher, Expertise and the Post Hoc Judgement of Insanity..., 57 Northwestern Univ. Law Review, Vol.4 (1963-1963) Footer

  10. Extra Header INSANITY • NO Test in Science to Determine Insanity • Insanity is a moral and legal test, not a scientific or medical test, correct? • How many classes in medical school did you take on this state’s sanity test? • Can you name just one scientific test that can accurately and reliably determine if a person is sane or insane presently? • Can you identify one objective and scientific test which can determine if a person was sane or insane when he committed ......? There is not one, correct? Footer

  11. Extra Header Insanity • Can you actually state, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the defendant did not know it was legally or morally wrong to ....? • If yes, what scientific test do you base that on? • What do you believe the phrase “nature and quality of his act means in the law of sanity? • Where get that definition? • Did you make it up? • Defendant killed a human being? • It would be important to know if the defendant understood the act of murder involves the killing of a human being? Footer

  12. Extra Header Insanity • He didn’t kill a car, or a fire hydrant right? • When he killed, he chose the right implement to kill with, right? • Wouldn’t the proper choice of a killing weapon demonstrate that the defendant was capable of understanding the nature of his act? • He chose a lethal weapon right? (Gun, Knife etc) • He had enough mental wherewithal not to try to kill with a fly swatter right? • If the question is whether the defendant understood the quality of killing, it would be important to know whether he (shot/stabbed) the v in a lethal area of the body? • He shot/stabbed the victim in the chest/head? Not foot? • Is there any question in your mind D chose the area of body that would kill? Footer

  13. Extra Header Cross of Defense Expert • 803(13) Learned Treatises • Can cross on articles the witness did not consider. • Can be admitted for the truth if • The statements are established as reliable by testimony or judicial notice or • Treatise we relied upon by an expert • Confront the expert with the treatise. Footer

  14. Extra Header Cross of Defense expert • Send them any treatises you want them to consider • Tell them what you want them to focus on • Send by registered letter Footer

  15. Extra Header Cross of Defense Expert • To do the money dance or not? • If Court appointed and jury told--NO • Court appointed? % of income from testimony • Privately Retained? How much/hour Total Footer

  16. Extra Header Case Prep AT THE LEAST • Complete set of reports • Both state and federal rap sheets • Juvenile history • All reports from each and every arrest • All records of adjudication, include probation reports and psych records not under seal • All DA files on each case • School records, including any psych testing records Footer

  17. Extra Header CASE PREP • Interviews with, family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, bosses, school mates, teachers, anyone who would know D’s day to day functioning • All military records • Any family court files: divorce, child custody • All jail/prison records • Jail visitor records • Any removal orders for mental testing etc Footer

  18. Extra Header Case Prep REQUESTS TO DEFENSE • All witnesses civilian/experts to be called • Resume/CV of each expert--THEN CHECK IT! • As to experts • written reports • raw notes/tapes or notes of interviews • tests administered with raw data and results • any other reports relied upon by expert and source Footer

  19. Extra Header Diagnosis • Must become an expert • Obtain any tx’s of experts testimony • Obtain any writings, publications or presentations • Call other prosecutors re: expert • Any tests given, get testing protocols • Validation groups for tests--Example MMPI • Research claimed mental illness Footer

  20. Extra Header Becoming an expert • Research diagnosis in DSM IV • Research each test in Burrough’s Mental Measurement Yearbook and Ziskin • Research alternative Diagnosis in DSM IV including antisocial personality disorder • Research Malingering Footer

  21. Extra Header Becoming an expert Anti-Social • Pattern of disregard for and violation of rights of others since 15 (at least 3 of following ) • Failure to follow norms with lawful behavior by committing crimes • Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases or conning others for profit or pleasure • impulsivity or failure to plan ahead • irritability and aggressiveness, evidenced by fights/assaults • reckless disregard for safety of self or others

  22. Extra Header Anti-Social Disorder • Irresponsibility indicated by failure to sustain consistent work or honor financial commitments • lack of remorse • at least 18 years old • not all behavior during manic episodes or due to schizophrenia • started before 15 Footer

  23. Extra Header Tactical Considerations • Run naked or • Battle of Experts • If you go crash and burn and run naked you cannot call your own expert. • If you run naked and you want to rely on a court appointed doc you cannot do crash and burn. Footer

  24. Extra Header Voir Dire • Consistent with your strategy • Be careful--people see therapists, will not tell you Footer

  25. Extra Header Voir Dire Examples • Have you/family/friends been treated by psych? • Counseling in the mental health field? • Do you have opinions about psychs in courtroom? • Do you believe psychology is an exact science? • Have you read anything about controversies over psychs testifying in criminal court? • Have you ever sought a second opinion from a doctor? Footer

  26. Extra Header Voir Dire Examples • Would you agree a psych can be wrong? • Do you believe a psych is better able to tell whether someone is lying than you? If yes, why? • Would you agree an expert opinion is only as good as the facts on which opinion is based? • If you were satisfied after hearing all evidence that the opinion of expert were wrong, would you have any difficulty rejecting that opinion? • Have you every known anybody to fake being sick to avoid responsibility? Footer

  27. Extra Header Cross Plan • Information available to expert • qualifications • biases--therapeutic, philosophical, money • credibility • “science” • inability accurately diagnose present or past mental states • failure to consider alternative diagnosis (psychopath) Footer

  28. Extra Header Cross Plan • inappropriate use of legal construction (insanity) • lack of reliable factual data to support ultimate opinion Footer

  29. Extra Header BIAS --Retained expert • Point out how not appointed by court • Vast majority of work done for defense • Money dance • Hourly rate/#of hours spent on case to date • How little time actually spent with D • Never consulted you, called cops, witnesses • Out of town expert--have opinion will travel! Footer

  30. Extra Header Attack “Science” • Agree with me doc that this is not an exact science • Would agree there is considerable controversy as to whether psychs can reliably and accurately diagnose mental illness. • You are familiar with studies wherein that inability has been discussed. • Have you read and considered studies by Dr. David Rosenhan from Stanford University as published in an article called On Being Sane in Insane Places? Footer

  31. Extra Header Attack “Science • The Rosenhan study established a 100% diagnostic failure rate on the part of mental health experts? • 8 people presented themselves to mental institutions claiming to hear voices. All were diagnosed as schizophrenics right? • Every single one was incorrectly diagnosed, right? • In fact, the goal of the study was to show how accurate mental health professionals were, right? • In fact, the patients figured out these people weren’t mentally ill before the doctors did? • You still say you can psychs are accurate? Footer

  32. Extra Header Attack “Science” • You have read Dr. Bernard Diamond and considered his criticisms concerning reliability of psych judgements? • Dr. Diamond is an eminent authority in the field of forensic psychiatry right? • Read quote from first slide--do you agree/ why not? • Professor Ralph Slovenko has written in the area of the lack of objectivity and imprecision involved in psych diagnosis? • Do you agree with Professor Slovenko that psych diagnosis is subjective? • Subjective means not scientifically objective? Footer

  33. Extra Header Attack “Science” • Do you agree with this quote from Professor Slovenko, “a diagnostic framework suitable for treatment or research may be quite inappropriate for forensic purposes. The mere fact that diagnostic categories exist does not man that they represent objective facts, or they must be used in the law.” • In fact that position is shared by the American Psychiatric Association, right? • You would agree, that your diagnosis is not scientific and that another psych could evaluate this person and come to a different conclusion. Footer

  34. Extra Header Attack “Science of Postdictions” • Would you agree with this quote from Dr. Scher, It is patently absurd to attempt to determine the state of mind of an individual at sometime in the near or distant past...and that a forensic psychiatrist should not acquies to try. • Then go over the data relied on by expert. • Go over what D told doc--any differences from true facts • Then go over whether the doc took lies from D into account • Then go over every lie D ever told • Point out D has every motive to lie Footer

  35. Extra Header Post Diction • Point out the questions psych didn’t ask • Did you know it was wrong when you shot the guy? • If you didn’t think it was wrong, why did you run? • Why did you discard the weapon? • Point out the psych either ignored or intentionally overlooked all the evidence which shows d’s story is garbage. • Point out psych did no independent investigation to show whether D was lying and has a history of lying--they never do! • Pay close attention to whether the psych escalates what D actually said or glosses over damaging admissions. Footer

  36. Extra Header Post Diction • USE REAL EVIDENCE to show mental illness had no bearing on crime • Evidence of • Motive • Pre-existing animus • Pre-offense preparation ie arming etc. • Appropriate victim selection • Ability to carry out crime • Post commission flight/coverup/other consciousness of guilt Footer

  37. Extra Header Ultimate Opinion • If psych wants to give opinion as to sanity • Remind it is a legal/moral concept, not medical • No test to determine sanity • Opinion violates American Psychiatric Association tenants Footer

  38. Extra Header DSM-IV • Cautionary Statement--committees • Also, inclusion does not mean it meets legal criteria • Introduction---Significant danger of misuse of DSMIV in legal settings • Page 683--Malingering, know it. Especially #1 • If referred by attorney or court, Clinician should STRONGLY SUSPECT malingering • #4 Anti-Social Personality Disorder (Psychopath) Footer

  39. Extra Header TESTS • MMPI-2 has some problems • Control Group--1940s Minnesotans, all relatives of criminally insane • All refinements are based on that control group • All true false, some answers will vary by age, some by faking, go through some of the questions: • 249: My eyesight is as good as it has been for years. Test taker young or old? • 24: Evil spirits possess me at times. What do you think your malingerer will answer? Or if someone is seeking to seem normal will answer? • 128: I like to cook. ????? How is that relevant for our purposes? • 166: I am worried about sex. Who isn’t? Footer

  40. Extra Header Footer

More Related