Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We conducted a pilot study about the professionalism of opposing expert witnesses as perceived by subject experts. The investigated topics included opponents' disorganization; forgetfulness; failure to examine a relevant party or review relevant documents; ignorance of the legal standard; giving an opinion or espousing a theory beyond the case facts or the relevant science; and replacement of objectivity with advocacy. We also looked at perceptions of opposing experts as “hired guns” and at treating professionals serving as experts. Significant findings were: opposing experts' lack of professionalism was perceived by half of the sample; lack of professionalism was attributed to espousal of idiosyncratic theories and loss of objectivity; participants professed a high degree of certainty about these views. “Hired gun” status in opponents and treating professionals as opposing experts were viewed as rare events.

Keywords

Expert professionalism expert witnesses forensic psychiatry forensic psychology

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrich

(1988). Rasch models for measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen

(1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.

Commons

M. L.

Miller

P. M.

, & Gutheil

T. G.

(2004). Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32, 70–75.

Dattilio

F. M.

Commons

M. L.

Adams

K. M.

Gutheil

T. G.

, & Sadoff

R. L.

(2006). Pilot Rasch scaling of lawyers' perceptions of expert bias. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34, 482–491.

Gutheil

T. G.

(2000a, October). Presidential address. Speech delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vancouver, BC.

Gutheil

T. G.

(2000b). The presentation of forensic psychiatric evidence in court. Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 37, 137–144.

Gutheil

T. G.

(2001). Adventures in the twilight zone: Empirical studies of the attorney-expert relationship. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 13–17.

Gutheil

T. G.

Commons

M. L.

, & Miller

P. M.

(2001). Personal questions on cross-examination: A pilot study of expert witness attitudes. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 85–88.

Gutheil

T. G.

, & Sutherland

P. K.

(1999). Forensic assessment, witness credibility, and the search for truth through expert testimony in the courtroom. Journal of Psychiatry and Law, 27, 289–312.

10.

Rasch

(1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

11.

Strasburger

L. H.

Gutheil

T. G.

, & Brodsky

(1997). On wearing two hats: Role conflict in serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 448–456.

12.

Wright

B. D.

, & Stone

M. H.

(1979). Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press.