Testifying Experts and Non-Testifying Trial Consultants: Appreciating the Differences

Gould, Jonathan W.; Martindale, David A.; Tippins, Timothy M.; Wittmann, Jeff

doi:10.1080/15379418.2010.547442

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Testifying roles of an expert include court appointed testimony, neutral evaluator, caseblind didactic fact expert, testifying, evaluating expert hired by either the defense or the prosecution, and work product reviewer (Gould, Martindale, Tippins, & Wittman, 2011). The U.S. Supreme Court has held that expert testimony, to be admissible in federal courts, must be relevant to the case and based on principles, theories, or techniques that are scientifically reliable and valid.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility

Wechsler

Kehn

Wise

et al. 2015

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility

Wechsler

Kehn

Wise

et al. 2015

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Until recently little had been written on this emerging role to provide guidance on the ethics and framework for delivering this service to attorneys and the court (see Gould, Kirkpatrick, Austin, & Martindale, 2004; Martindale & Gould, 2008; Stahl, 1994). Recent articles provide guidance on forensic consultation services in child custody cases, issues involved in providing ethical testimony as a rebuttal witness as a reviewer, and a protocol for conducting a competent work product review (Austin, Dale, Kirkpatrick, & Flens, 2011; Kirkpatrick, Austin, & Flens, 2011; Gould, Martindale, Tippins, & Wittmann, 2011; Lee & Nachlis, 2011). This current article adds to these steps towards establishing a standard of practice for forensic consultation and review services.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Emerging Forensic Role for Work Product Review and Case Analysis in Child Access and Parenting Plan Disputes

Austin

Kirkpatrick

Flens³

2011

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An emerging forensic service is that of conducting a work product review of a court-appointed child custody evaluator's evaluation and report. If the reviewer determines there are serious deficiencies in the work product, then the reviewer will provide consultation to the retaining attorney and expert testimony. The reviewer usually is in a hybrid role of consulting/ advising the retaining attorney, testifying, and educating the court. Ethical issues in providing forensic services and rebuttal testimony as a reviewer are discussed. Both reviewers and evaluators have a duty to be objective and balanced in their analyses of data and issues. Both types of experts should strive to be helpful to the court and try to serve the best interests of children. Ethical nuances involving review work are discussed. Evaluator and reviewer share the same dataset. Evaluators need to take care to keep a high quality case record with legible interview notes. Reviewers provide a monitoring function for the court or a function of forensic quality control so the court will not be misled by expert testimony of evaluators that is based on flawed data collection and/or analysis. A list of questions is presented for reviewers to use in scrutinizing the quality of the custody evaluation. A list of questions is presented for examining the quality of the reviewer's own work product. The importance of a case analysis and use of conceptual frameworks by evaluators and reviewers is discussed.Mental health professionals of many disciplines have been called upon to provide a wider range of forensic services for the courts in parenting plan and child access disputes-e.g., evaluator, mediator, early neutral assessor/mediator, parenting coordinator, special master, arbiter/decision maker, and court-appointed treating therapist. An emerging role is that of the reviewer of a court-appointed custody evaluator's report and underlying case file. The reviewer is retained by an attorney to conduct a review of the report and evaluation procedures. This may include quality of the data analysis, how substantive issues are addressed, and if the opinions correspond to the underlying data. . This current article adds to these steps towards establishing a standard of practice for forensic consultation and review services.f cre_1410 737..749 Professional guidelines or model standards for the reviewer role have not yet been produced by professional organizations. 2 The role of reviewer also has not been identified or regulated specifically by state licensing statutes. It is clear there is not yet sufficient literature to help establish a "standard of practice" to guide the forensic work of reviewers, but recent articles may help establish practice parameters. 3 It is known that mental health experts from various disciplines are being called upon to provide work product review with increasing frequency in child custody disputes. Judges are becoming more aware of the involvement of consulting and reviewing experts involved in the case that may provide a review and sec...

show abstract

“…Another practice emphasis involves a focus on achieving a clear definition of the role a CIMHP takes on in a given case, at any given time, and the cautious avoidance of engaging in multiple, simultaneous roles that may conflict with F I G U R E 3 Role factor each other (Drogin & Barrett, 2007;Gould, Martindale, Tippins, & Wittmann, 2011;Greenberg & Gould, 2001;Greenberg & Shuman, 1997;Hess, 1998;Martindale, 2006;Melton, Petrila, Poythress, Slobogin, Otto, Mossman, & Condie, 2018;Weissman & DeBow, 2003). This approach involves an emphasis on achieving a careful definition of the professional "hat" one will be wearingthe choice of a label that summarizes to whom or to what entity the practitioner has primary responsibility.…”

Section: Background Of Role-emphasismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There has been discussion about various ethical lenses seen as important for court-involved mental health professionals (CIMHPs) to incorporate into their practices: (a) an emphasis on the role that is assumed in any given court-involved relationship (i.e., to whom the professional has primary and secondary responsibilities) (Drogin & Barrett, 2007;Gould, Martindale, Tippins, & Wittmann, 2011;Hess, 1998;Martindale, 2006;Melton, Petrila, Poythress, Slobogin, Otto, Mossman, & Condie, 2018;Weissman & DeBow, 2003); (b) An emphasis on the more molecular services (i.e., activities the professional is asked to engage in) (Dale & Gould, 2014;Austin, Dale, Kirkpatrick, & Flens, 2011); and (c) an emphasis on staying vigilantly focused on the social value ensconced in the "best interests of the child" principle (Hobbs-Minor & Sullivan, 2008;Lee & Nachlis, 2011). This article argues that all three of the factors listed above (services, roles, and guiding values) are critical for effective and cautious ethical reasoning.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A three‐factor ethical reasoning model for court‐involved practitioners: Services, roles, and values

Wittmann¹

2022

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Court-involved mental health professionals (CIMHPs) practice in a context fraught with ethical challenges and complexity. Prior commentators have offered perspectives on the factors that should be considered as these ethical issues are navigated, yet no structured system for organizing the process of ethical analysis has been offered to date in this area of practice. The three-factor ethical reasoning model described below suggests the following basic process: (a) the operational definition of the service (s) requested; (b) a precise definition of the professional role that will be assumed for each separate service; and (c) an analysis of the ethical issues within a case by referencing promulgated statutes, regulations, codes, and guidelines, as well as foundational values.

show abstract

Testifying Experts and Non-Testifying Trial Consultants: Appreciating the Differences

Cited by 6 publications

References 19 publications

Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility

Attorney beliefs concerning scientific evidence and expert witness credibility

The Emerging Forensic Role for Work Product Review and Case Analysis in Child Access and Parenting Plan Disputes

A three‐factor ethical reasoning model for court‐involved practitioners: Services, roles, and values

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About