Forensic psychiatric experts under the legal microscope

Abstract

Purpose We examined how 157 legal professionals view the role and performance of forensic psychiatric experts (psychiatrists and psychologists) in court, and what experiences they have with the experts. Methods The participants filled in an online survey with ratings and open‐ended questions. Results Their experience was fairly limited, but the general impression was one of overall satisfaction with the experts. Experience was not only valued but also clarity in language and presentation were important, together with verifiability and thoroughness. The ability or willingness to express doubt was also emphasized. In addition, a significant proportion felt they had observed differences between psychologists and psychiatrists, and they preferred psychiatrists based on a perception of higher professional skills. Conclusions Despite media uproars after controversial cases, the Norwegian system of court‐appointed experts received a positive review from the legal professionals; they report an overall positive experience with forensic psychiatric experts.

How Do Legal Experts Cope With Medical Reports and Forensic Evidence? The Experiences, Perceptions, and Narratives of Swiss Judges and Other Legal Experts

“…In line with the existing literature, our results indicate that legal experts deem medical knowledge to be important for their work and reported depending on outside information, for example, in the form of expert testimony (28, 70). Judges and prosecutors had acquired some general medical knowledge, usually in the form of a lecture focusing on forensic medicine during law school.…”

When insanity has gone undiscovered by the courts: The practice of the Norwegian Criminal Cases Review Commission in cases of doubts about insanity

“…To separate the legally sane from the insane can be a very difficult task, as the experts cannot enter a defendant's brain and ‘see’ an active psychosis. On the other hand, the NCCRC may not have many alternatives, and the legal parties in Norway generally have confidence in the experts (Grønnerød et al, ). There are some examples of the court disregarding psychiatric evidence, although they are often special cases.…”

Expectations of lawyers with regard to neuropsychological evaluations in motor vehicle accident claims.

“…They also opined that reports are written from ready-made templates without much individual variation (Vanderploeg et al, 2005). Furthermore, Grønnerød, Grøndahl, and Stridbeck (2013) also indicated that court professionals expect consistent professional performance from psychologists in writing their reports and appearing in court. They expect the experts to have considerable experience, to present good clinical judgment, to present clear and verifiable conclusions in the reports, and to do so in clear and simple language.…”