Witness Testimony Flashcards
Role of witness testimony expert
Evaluations examining the mental status of a client,
complete a personal history review to explore the individual’s openness, cognitive abilities, attachment patterns and general capacity for describing his/her life in a coherent, chronological way.
Assessment types possible in WT
Personality, affect, intelligence, anger/violence, substance abuse, child abuse potential, empathy/ perspective-taking abilities, sex offending risk, clinical diagnosis
Def of expert according to the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales
“a person whose evidence is intended to be tendered before a court and who has relevant skill or knowledge achieved through research, experience or professional application within a specific field sufficient to entitle them to give evidence of their opinion and upon which the court may require independent, impartial assistance”
3 types of witnesses in court
Ordinary, professional and independent expert witness,
Ordinary witness
a person who saw the event, cannot tell more than when they believe they saw
Professional witness
e.g. clinician working with defendent
Independent expert witness
Must give a robust view be independent of any payers, views,
Biases role not to favour one view both parties should be satisfied with the quality of the expert witness
Strong knowledge and experience in the area they are reporting about
Expected to know the expert’s place in the legal system and the legislations in place
Adapt a SCIENTIST PRACTITIONER ROLE
May be asked to do a evaluations (future risk assessment, current clinical presentation and past behavioural relevance) of patient under Mental Health Act (1983)
Expert Process
process refers to the act of giving evidence in a legal forum, either orally or in written form.
Test of fitness to plead includes
- being able to comprehend the course of proceedings on the trial, so as to make a proper defence
- to know that he might challenge any jurors to whom he may object
- to comprehend the evidence
- or to give proper instructions to his legal representatives.
If a person is deemed unfit to plead
The court may pic one of the following:
- hospital order (obligatory with restrictions and no time limit in case of unlawful killing)
- guardianship order
- supervision and treatment order
- absolute discharge
Sally Clark ( R v Clark (1999))
a case presenting that psychologists should not pose opinions that cannot be supported by scientific data to substantiate the findings.
Sally Clark ( R v Clark (1999))
a case presenting that psychologists should not pose opinions that cannot be supported by scientific data to substantiate the findings.
–> two boys die shortly after birth 2 years apart
The prosecution case relied on the expert testimony of Professor Meadow who presented statistical evidence that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering sudden infant death syndrome was 1 in 73 million. Mrs Clark was subsequently convicted by a jury of 10 to 2. BUT there was some error in statistics and there were appeals about the misuse of statistics in court.
Professor Meadow relied on a statistical technique that was not empirically tested, peer reviewed, generally accepted within the scientific community or with known error rates.
Balance of probability
findings of fact are made based on a concluding formal judgment made by the judge concerning key issues about the case (e.g. is it possible to make a determination that one way of examining events and outcomes is broadly viewed as more probable than any other?)
Beyond reasonable doubt
Probability in criminal proceedings
necessary for the court to be able to determine guilt
No ‘double indemnity’
a person cannot be trialled twice for the same crime
Parent Putting Kids First (PPKF)
This is a non-adversarial and non-confrontational approach that promotes four basic principles: first, separating the people from the problem; second, focussing on the parties’ shared interests, not their different positions; third, creating options that both parents accept as being in the best interest of the child; and finally, viewing the other parent as an active problem solver rather than an opponent (Drayton & Wilcox, 2013).
Oral evidence stages
Examination in chief
Cross-examination
Re-examination
Examination in chief
Will begin by being called by the counsel who first instructed the expert – this will be the expert’s oral testimony.
Cross-examination
Will be led by counsel who represents other parties who may disagree with the expert’s evidence or the conclusions of their report.
Re-examination
Is usually led by the counsel who originally called the expert and will focus on questions to clarify their evidence.
+ the judge may decide to ask more questions in complicated cases
! responses addressed to the judge, not the counsel
Issues experts can face when giving testimony
Leading questions
Intimidation (by asserting dominance)
Aggressive interrogation
Very slow interrogation, affecting the concentration of the expert
Looking into internal inconsistencies
Repeating the same question in hopes of different answers
Putting pressure to give a yes or no answer
Questions about things the expert was not asked to report on
Practice Direction (PD) 35 of Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR, 2013)
Gives the court the power to order concurrent evidence/ hot-tubbing by allowing it to direct that expert witnesses from like disciplines can give their evidence concurrently by sharing the witness stand together. The judge may initiate the discussion by asking the experts, in turn, for their views. Once an expert has expressed a view the judge may ask questions about it. the court can also aks other experts the same thing on one matter - “hot-tubbing”, a way of reaching points of agreement between experts withough wasting courts time.
Different roles of a forensic psychologist
Forensic psychologists often have specific and different areas of expertise, since the knowledge base of forensic psychologists cuts across clinical, educational, social, developmental, abnormal, neurophysiological, occupational and other areas of psychology.
(Craig, Dixon, & Gannon, 2013; Gudjonsson, Sigurdsson, Sigurdardottir, Steinthorsson, & Sigurdardottir, 2014; Wilcox, 2013).
In addition, the forensic psychologist’s recognised area of expertise may centre around assessment (Craig & Rettenberger, 2016), treatment (Wilcox, Garrett, & Harkins, 2014), theory (Ward & Beech, 2016) or research (Davies & Valentine, 2007). However, longer term involvement in expert reporting tends to give rise to a gradual development and diversification of professional interests and an expansion of the expert’s skill base.
