If you are a psychologist who conducts forensic evaluations, how would you respond to an attorney's or family member's request to be present or to videotape the evaluation? Your answer may be impacted by legal, professional, ethical, and practical issues as addressed in legal and mental health publications. However, there is a dearth of empirical attention, and even the opinions and practices of psychologists in this arena are unclear. The present article addresses the need for empirical data on third party presence by surveying forensic clinicians' perspectives on the topic. A total of 160 forensic practitioners (41% response rate) provided information on their attitudes and practices pertaining to third parties in an evaluation. Overall, most clinicians believe third party presence can negatively impact an evaluation, yet most have conducted examinations under such conditions. The article concludes with speculation as to the impact of third party presence, a call for research and professional standards, and specific guidelines for psychologists who may struggle with these complex issues.

The house-tree-person technique was administered to 17 right hemisphere brain-damaged patients, 19 left hemisphere brain-damaged patients (LED), and 23 non-brain-damaged medical patients. Statistical analyses revealed significant differences between these groups in size and spatial placement of drawings. In particular, LBD patients drew smaller figures and more frequently placed them in the upper left-hand quadrant of the paper. These results can be discussed in terms of both projective psychological interpretations and neuropsychological theory.

No abstract

No abstract

This study used a mixed quantitative-qualitative methodology to examine whether mock jurors considered a defendant's meta-responsibility - specifically, the defendant's medication noncompliance and degree of insight into his/her schizophrenia - when determining the person's criminal responsibility. The degree of expert witness explanation regarding these factors was also varied. Participants (n = 173) were grouped into 30 juries, randomized across five conditions, and shown mock testimony and attorney arguments based on a real not guilty by reason of insanity court case. Linear mixed-modeling analysis showed that manipulations of medication compliance, insight, and expert testimony elaboration did not predict differential verdict and meta-responsibility outcomes. Nevertheless, qualitative exploration of focus groups from five juries (n = 29) indicated that participants across groups strongly considered meta-responsibility, but did so in a way that, along with a host of other considerations, suggested mock jurors were unable and/or unwilling to follow their duties as the triers of fact. Implications for legal participants, expert witnesses, and researchers are discussed.