Forensic Assessment, Witness Credibility and the Search for Truth through Expert Testimony in the Courtroom

Abstract

In the legal system's search for truth, determination of the credibility of any witness is left to the fact finder. The widely recognized bar on any witness's attesting to the credibility of any other witness or claimant, however, exists in tension with certain ethical and technical requirements of the forensic psychiatric witness's role. These requirements include the need to perform an initial credibility threshold determination; the need to consider malingering in all forensic evaluations; and the need to utilize standard criteria for diagnosis, even if some diagnoses have acquired pejorative connotations. After examining the impact of Daubert v. Merrell-Dow on admissibility of scientific testimony, this article reviews the conflicts and concepts impinging on the legal system's search for truth through fairness and offers suggestions for coping with the testimonial and theoretical pitfalls that may occur during the process.

The whole truth? Hypothetical questions and the (de)construction of knowledge in expert witness cross-examination

“…When employed in jury trials involving expert witnesses, such questions seek to convince the jurors, as well as affect their perception and interpretation of the evidence, offering a fragmentary view of reality which supports the cross-examiner's narrative. Seen in this light, hypotheticals do not aim to present "the whole truth", but serve to construct "the admissible truth" (Gutheil et al 2003) which is then turned into evidence.…”

“…

This paper examines the relation between hypotheticals and epistemic stance in jury trials, and it reveals how hypothetically framed questions (HQs) are used in crossexamination to construct "the admissible truth" (Gutheil et al 2003) which is then turned into evidence. It looks at a selection of interactional exchanges identified in the transcripts and video recordings which document two days of expert witness crossexamination in two high-profile criminal cases.

…”

Forensic psychology in the context of trauma.

“…As Gutheil and Simon (1999) noted, it is extremely common for an attorney to call an expert with a request such as "Could you testify that my client has PTSD?" rather than "Could you evaluate my client for the possibility of PTSD?"…”