Witness Testimony Flashcards

1
Q

Role of witness testimony expert

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Assessment types possible in WT

A

Personality, affect, intelligence, anger/violence, substance abuse, child abuse potential, empathy/ perspective-taking abilities, sex offending risk, clinical diagnosis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Def of expert according to the Crown Prosecution Service of England and Wales

A

“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”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

3 types of witnesses in court

A

Ordinary, professional and independent expert witness,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Ordinary witness

A

a person who saw the event, cannot tell more than when they believe they saw

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Professional witness

A

e.g. clinician working with defendent

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Independent expert witness

A

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)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Expert Process

A

process refers to the act of giving evidence in a legal forum, either orally or in written form.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Test of fitness to plead includes

A
  • 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

If a person is deemed unfit to plead

A

The court may pic one of the following:

  1. hospital order (obligatory with restrictions and no time limit in case of unlawful killing)
  2. guardianship order
  3. supervision and treatment order
  4. absolute discharge
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Sally Clark ( R v Clark (1999))

A

a case presenting that psychologists should not pose opinions that cannot be supported by scientific data to substantiate the findings.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Sally Clark ( R v Clark (1999))

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Balance of probability

A

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?)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Beyond reasonable doubt

A

Probability in criminal proceedings

necessary for the court to be able to determine guilt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

No ‘double indemnity’

A

a person cannot be trialled twice for the same crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Parent Putting Kids First (PPKF)

A

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).

17
Q

Oral evidence stages

A

Examination in chief
Cross-examination
Re-examination

18
Q

Examination in chief

A

Will begin by being called by the counsel who first instructed the expert – this will be the expert’s oral testimony.

19
Q

Cross-examination

A

Will be led by counsel who represents other parties who may disagree with the expert’s evidence or the conclusions of their report.

20
Q

Re-examination

A

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

21
Q

Issues experts can face when giving testimony

A

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

22
Q

Practice Direction (PD) 35 of Criminal Procedure Rules (CPR, 2013)

A

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.

23
Q

Different roles of a forensic psychologist

A

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.