A Forensic Examination of Court Reports

Abstract

Advice to professionals who conduct forensic evaluations for courts on how to write an effective report has been driven by legal evidentiary principles and best practices in assessment. Surprisingly, little attention has been paid to how salient information is integrated within a report, and how non-informational aspects of reports (e.g., order and format of information) may impact the fact-finding process. Experts are required to integrate both qualitative and quantitative information from a variety of different sources, with varying degrees of reliability and validity. Nevertheless, it is assumed that the trier of fact relatively weights and integrates the relevant information contained in a report in order to form a conclusion, and that this conclusion is then itself weighted and integrated with other evidence in order to formulate the final decision in a case. We apply theories and findings from the field of decision science to critically evaluate these assumptions and extend their application to outcomes of empirical studies on forensic reports. By drawing together the findings from these two areas of research, we identify research gaps and provide some recommendations on ways to structure and format expert reports to enhance their appropriate impact on the trier of fact.

Forensic Speaker Verification: Case Report at Brazilian Justice

“…However, the remaining formants were enough to attest the positive voice of the suspect, as observed on Table 7. It is important to mention that, during production of a forensic report by the practitioner, those analyses contribute significantly for enhancement of the forensic practitioner's job, for time and technical detail, structure and format the expert reports to enhance their appropriate impact on the trier of fact [21].…”

Report Writing in the Forensic Context: Recurring Problems and the Use of a Checklist to Address Them

“…The field of forensic psychology has grown exponentially over the past three decades to include the various roles of expert witness, psychological assessment, and victim and offender rehabilitation (Burl, Shah, & Dematteo, 2008). However, one of the core competencies of a forensic psychologist remains that of report writing (Australian Psychological Society, 2014;Goodman-Delahunty & Dhami, 2013), which bridges the gap between psychological assessment and in-court testimony (Wettstein, 2010). The overarching purpose of a forensic psychological report is to apply psychological knowledge and understanding to address a legal question.…”

“…Problems with forensic reports can be identified via two types of empirical studies: either from surveys and feedback from legal professionals on the quality of reports, or by evaluations of the extent to which reports comply with certain principles of appropriate forensic mental health assessment (Goodman-Delahunty & Dhami, 2013). In an example of the latter, Grisso (2010) analysed feedback provided by the American Board of Forensic Psychology (ABFP) in relation to 62 forensic psychology reports.…”

“…Furthermore, the danger is that such errors may go undetected by judges, jurors, lawyers and law enforcement agencies that have limited psychological expertise. Given the fact that the readers of forensic psychological reports (or triers of fact) rarely have in-depth psychological knowledge, it is important that the reports be written clearly and simply and explain any necessary technical terms (Goodman-Delahunty & Dhami, 2013). Grisso included 'language problems' on the list of top 10 faults with forensic reports.…”

Analysis of the procedures used in the forensic evaluation of illegal substances: a statistical approach to interpreting reports

“…Internationally, attention has been given to results obtained from psychology and forensic psychiatry. [2][3][4][5][6] In such cases, it is important to assure quality, since different and even conflicting results may be obtained by different practitioners. Even techniques of forensic analysis considered to be determinant or practically free of flaws, such as DNA testing, may have subjective interpretations and possibly even be misleading.…”