Forensic Psych Exam 1

Forensic Psychology

the application of psychological knowledge, theory, research, and methods to legal questions

• Work occurs anywhere psychology intersects with law, including:

o Criminal courts

o Civil courts

o Law enforcement investigations

o Correctional and detention settings

o Competency and risk evaluations

o Policy and legal decision-making

Forensic Psychologist’s role

is evaluative and consultative, not decision-making

Forensic psychologist primary responsibility

is to the legal system, not to a client in the traditional therapy sense

** A forensic psychologist does not decide guilt or innocence. They may evaluate whether someone was competent to stand trial or

whether a confession was reliable

Forensic Psychology vs. Clinical Psychology

• Although both are psychologists, the roles differ significantly:

o Clinical psychology prioritizes client welfare and treatment

o Forensic psychology prioritizes accuracy, objectivity, and the legal question

• Dual roles (therapist + evaluator) are generally avoided due to ethical conflicts

Example: A therapist’s goal is to support a client; a forensic evaluator’s goal is to assess functioning—even if findings are

unfavorable.

What forensic psych is not

• Not criminal profiling like TV shows

• Not mind-reading

• Not therapy (even though psychologists are involved)

• Not advocacy for one side (defense or prosecution)

Ethics and Professional Responsibility

• Forensic psychologists are governed by:

o Ethical principles

o Specialty practice guidelines

o Legal standards

• Ethical responsibilities include:

o Honesty about limits

Forensic Psychology- Intro to Ethics: Amara Mason, B.S., B.A. 2

o Avoidance of speculation

o Clear documentation of methods

• Errors can have serious legal and personal consequences

Example: Overstating confidence in a report may influence sentencing or custody outcomes.

• They must:

o Be honest about limitations

o Avoid speculation

o Clearly separate facts from opinions

• Overstating certainty can cause real legal harm

Example: Saying “this behavior proves guilt” is unethical; saying “this behavior is consistent with several possibilities” is

appropriate.

Objectivity, Neutrality and Role Clarity

• Forensic psychologists must remain neutral, fair, and objective

• Personal beliefs, emotions, or moral judgments must be set aside

• Confidence must be grounded in evidence, not intuition… however…

Example: Two experts can review the same evaluation and reach different conclusions—both can be ethical if their reasoning is

sound and transparent.

• Forensic psychologists must remain neutral, even when retained by one side

• Ethical practice requires:

o Awareness of personal biases

o Explicit role clarification at the start of involvement

• Neutrality does not mean indecision—it means evidence-based reasoning

Key principle: Forensic psychologists serve the legal system, not the individual being evaluated.

Example: An evaluator does not “help” a defendant appear incompetent; they assess whether legal criteria are met.

Bias and Stereotypes

• Everyone has biases, including professionals

• Bias can come from:

o Media portrayals of crime

o Stereotypes about age, gender, race, or appearance

o Prior expectations (“they look suspicious”)

Example: A person dressed in dark clothing at night may be perceived as threatening, even though clothing

• Bias can occur at any stage of forensic work:

o Information gathering

o Interpretation

o Report writing

• Common cognitive biases include:

o Confirmation bias

o Halo effect

Forensic Psychology- Intro to Ethics: Amara Mason, B.S., B.A. 3

o Stereotype bias

• Ethical practice requires intentional bias monitoring

Example: Knowing someone’s criminal history may unconsciously influence interpretation of ambiguous behavior

Memory, Perception, and Eyewitness Error

• People notice different details

• Salient features (clothing, unusual behavior) are often overemphasized

• Neutral behaviors can be interpreted as suspicious

Example: Someone pacing could be anxious, impatient, or simply waiting—not necessarily planning a crime.

• Human memory is reconstructive

• Recall is influenced by:

o Stress and emotional arousal

o Expectations and schemas

o Post-event information

• Confidence does not equal accuracy

Common forensic issue: Witnesses may sincerely believe their recollections are accurate—even when they are not.

Example: A witness may misremember clothing color after repeated questioning or media exposure

Limits of Evidence and Human Error

• Legal decisions are often made with:

o Incomplete information

o Conflicting reports

o Stressful conditions

• Memory is reconstructive and faulty

• Eyewitnesses can be honest and still inaccurate

Example: A witness confidently recalls “a man in a dark hoodie,” but stress, lighting, and expectations may have shaped that

memory

Limits of Psychological Evidence

• Psychological data is:

o Probabilistic, not definitive

o Context-dependent

o Influenced by measurement error

• No psychological test, interview, or observation provides certainty

Important concept: Psychological conclusions are degrees of likelihood, not absolute truth.

Example: A risk assessment estimates the probability of future behavior; it cannot predict behavior with certainty

Avoiding Overinterpretation

• Single traits or behaviors are rarely meaningful on their own

• Psychological diagnoses require patterns, not isolated facts

• Interests, personality traits, or “vibes” are not evidence

Key forensic question: “What are the alternative explanations?”

Example: Avoiding eye contact could reflect autism, anxiety, culture, fatigue, or stress—not deception.

Forensic psychologists must distinguish between:

o Observation (what was seen or reported)

o Inference (what might explain it)

o Conclusion (what is supported by evidence)

• Overinterpretation occurs when conclusions exceed available data

Core forensic habit: Actively considering alternative explanations.

Example: A flat affect could reflect depression, anxiety, medication effects, cultural norms, or fatigue

Respect for Individuals in the Legal System

• People involved in forensic contexts may be:

o Accused

o Detained

o Victims

o Under extreme stress

• Labels and conclusions affect real lives and outcomes

Example: A diagnosis or risk assessment can influence sentencing, custody, or incarceration.

• Individuals involved in forensic evaluations often experience:

o High stress

o Loss of autonomy

o Fear of consequences

• Ethical forensic practice requires:

o Respect

o Clear communication

o Avoidance of dehumanizing language

Example: Using neutral language (“the individual reports…”) instead of judgmental terms (“claims,” “pretends”)

Forensic Science

refers to the application of scientific knowledge and methods to:

o Criminal law (e.g., investigations, prosecutions)

o Civil law (e.g., lawsuits, disputes, liability)

• The goal is to assist the legal system by:

o Collecting evidence

o Analyzing evidence

o Interpreting findings in a legally relevant way

Key features of forensic science

• Applied science, not theoretical

• Must meet legal standards for:

o Reliability

o Validity

o Replicability

• Strong emphasis on:

o Objectivity

o Documentation

o Chain of custody

Interdisciplinary Nature

• Draws from many scientific domains:

o Biology (DNA, toxicology)

o Chemistry (drug analysis, trace evidence)

o Medicine (pathology, injury analysis)

o Technology (digital forensics)

o Behavioral sciences (psychology, criminology)

Media vs Reality

• Media portrayal:

o Fast results

o Absolute certainty

o Single expert solves everything

• Reality:

o Time-consuming analyses

o Probabilistic conclusions

o Team-based work

o Frequent ambiguity

Work Settings

• Public crime laboratories

o Primarily state or federal

o Handle the majority of forensic evidence

• Private labs and universities

o Research development

o Expert consulting

o Contracted forensic services

Common roles for forensic psychologist

• Conduct psychological evaluations for courts

• Provide expert testimony

• Consult with attorneys and judges

• Work with law enforcement and correctional systems

• Conduct research relevant to legal processes

Eyewitness Memory Research (Cattell)

• Early psychological research showed:

o Memory is reconstructive, not a recording

o Confidence does not equal accuracy

• Challenged legal assumptions that:

o Confident witnesses are reliable

• Influenced later reforms in eyewitness procedures

State v. Driver (1921)

Case Overview: State v. Driver represents the first known attempt to introduce a psychologist as an expert witness in a U.S. criminal

trial. The case involved a 12-year-old boy accused of rape in West Virginia. The defense argued that the child’s confession was

coerced and unreliable due to cognitive limitations and suggestibility.

A psychologist evaluated the child’s mental capacity and understanding of legal proceedings. However, the judge excluded the

testimony, ruling that psychology lacked sufficient scientific credibility to be admitted as expert evidence.

Although unsuccessful, the case was pivotal. It highlighted the need for standardized psychological assessments and marked the

beginning of forensic psychology’s presence within the legal system. The case helped pave the way for later acceptance of

psychological expertise in areas such as competency evaluations, witness credibility, juvenile justice, and insanity defenses.

• First U.S. criminal case attempting to introduce:

o A psychologist as an expert witness

• Defendant:

o 12-year-old boy accused of rape

• Defense argument:

o Confession was coerced

o Child lacked cognitive capacity to understand consequences

Psychological Issues Raised

• Suggestibility of children

• Intellectual functioning

• Understanding of legal rights

• Reliability of confessions

Court Decision

• Psychologist’s testimony excluded

• Judge ruled:

o Psychology lacked sufficient scientific credibility

Historical Importance

• Demonstrated early resistance to psychology in law

• Highlighted need for:

o Standardized assessments

o Professional credibility

• Marked the starting point of forensic psychology’s legal involvement

Dr. William Moulton Marston

The psychologist associated with State v. Driver was Dr. William Moulton Marston, a Harvard-trained psychologist and early

advocate for applying psychological science to legal questions. Marston developed an early form of the polygraph, based on systolic

blood pressure changes, believing that deception produced measurable physiological stress.

While his lie detection methods are not generally admissible in court today, Marston’s work profoundly influenced law enforcement

practices and future developments in psychophysiological assessment. Outside of psychology, he is also known as the creator of

Wonder Woman, reflecting his broader interest in psychology, power, and social influence.

• Psychologist involved in State v. Driver

• Education:

o PhD in Psychology (Harvard)

• Key contributions:

o Early lie detection research

o Systolic blood pressure test

• Assumptions:

o Lying produces physiological stress

o Stress can be measured objectively

• Influenced development of modern polygraph techniques

• Introduced idea of scientific deception detection

• Polygraphs today:

o Widely used in law enforcement

o Rarely admissible in court

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Brown v. Board of Education was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared racial segregation in public schools

unconstitutional. The case consolidated five separate challenges to segregation and overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which had

upheld the doctrine of “separate but equal.”

For the first time, psychological research played a central role in constitutional law. The Court relied on social science evidence to

demonstrate that segregation caused psychological harm to Black children, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment.

Case Background

• Challenged racial segregation in public schools

• Consolidated five separate cases

• Constitutional Question: Does “separate but equal” violate the Constitution?

Constitutional Issue

• 14th Amendment: Equal Protection Clause

Role of Psychology

• Psychological research of Clark Doll study used to demonstrate:

o Emotional harm

o Identity damage

o Long-term psychological consequences

Court Decision

• Unanimous ruling:

o Segregation is inherently unequal

• Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• Established precedent for:

o Social science evidence in constitutional cases

Clark doll study

Psychologists Kenneth and Mamie Clark conducted the Doll Study, which examined racial identity and self-esteem in Black children.

The findings revealed that many children preferred white dolls and associated positive attributes with whiteness, while attributing

negative qualities to Black dolls. Some children even denied identifying with the Black doll.

Forensic Psychology: Introduction Lesson- Amara Mason, B.S., B.A.

These results demonstrated the damaging psychological effects of segregation and internalized racism. Kenneth Clark testified about

these findings in Brown v. Board, and the Court explicitly cited this research in its decision—establishing a precedent for the use of

psychological science in legal reasoning.

Study Design

• Black children presented with:

o White dolls

o Black dolls

• Asked questions about:

o Preference

o Good vs. bad

o Self-identification

Findings

• Many children:

o Preferred white dolls

o Associated white dolls with positive traits

o Associated black dolls with negative traits

• Some children denied identifying with black dolls

Legal Significance

• Demonstrated internalized racism

• Provided empirical evidence of psychological harm

• Used directly in Supreme Court reasoning

Expanding Expert Testimony: Jenkins v. United States (1962)

In Jenkins v. United States, the defendant, Jenkins, was charged with criminal offenses and entered a plea of Not Guilty by Reason

of Insanity (NGRI). To support this defense, the defense called clinical psychologists who testified that Jenkins suffered from

schizophrenia, a severe mental disorder that could impair his ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions at the time of the

offense. Importantly, these psychologists were well trained, licensed professionals with expertise in psychological assessment and

diagnosis, even though they were not medical doctors.

Despite this testimony, the trial judge instructed the jury to disregard the psychologists’ opinions, stating that only

psychiatrists—as medical doctors—were qualified to diagnose mental illness or offer expert opinions on insanity. As a result, the jury

was effectively prevented from considering the psychologists’ testimony when evaluating Jenkins’s insanity defense. Jenkins was

convicted.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed the conviction, issuing a landmark ruling that fundamentally

changed the role of psychologists in the legal system. The appellate court held that expert qualification depends on training,

knowledge, skill, and experience—not possession of a medical degree. The court emphasized that psychology is a recognized

scientific discipline and that properly trained clinical psychologists are competent to diagnose mental disorders and testify about

mental functioning.

The court reasoned that excluding psychologists solely because they were not physicians was arbitrary and inconsistent with the

purpose of expert testimony, which is to assist the trier of fact (judge or jury) in understanding issues beyond ordinary knowledge.

The ruling made clear that credentials must be evaluated functionally, not hierarchically, and that juries should be allowed to weigh

the credibility of expert witnesses rather than having entire categories of experts excluded by rule.

Importance of Jenkins v. United States

This case is widely regarded as a turning point in forensic psychology because it:

• Formally recognized clinical psychologists as legitimate expert witnesses

• Opened the door for psychologists to testify in:

o Insanity defenses

o Competency to stand trial evaluations

o Criminal responsibility assessments

o Risk and dangerousness evaluations

• Helped establish that mental illness diagnosis is not exclusively a medical act

• Shifted courts toward an expertise-based standard, which later influenced broader admissibility rules (e.g., Daubert-era

thinking)

Without Jenkins, psychologists would likely have remained limited to advisory or testing roles, with psychiatrists holding near-

exclusive authority in criminal mental health testimony

Police and Public Safety Psych

• Subspecialty focused on:

o Supporting law enforcement

o Enhancing public safety

Four Core Functions

• Assessment

o Pre-employment screening

o Fitness-for-duty evaluations

• Clinical intervention

o Trauma counseling

o Stress management

• Operational support

o Crisis negotiation

o Threat assessment

• Organizational consulting

o Use-of-force review

o Diversity and bias training

Key Considerations

• Must understand police culture

• Work occurs in high-risk, high-stress environments

• Ethical complexity is common

Legal Psych

• Research-focused branch of psychology

• Examines:

o How legal systems affect people

o How psychological processes affect legal outcomes

Forensic Psychology: Introduction Lesson- Amara Mason, B.S., B.A.

Core Research Areas

• Jury decision-making

• Eyewitness accuracy

• Understanding of legal rights

• Insanity and criminal responsibility

• Child custody decision-making

False Confessions

• Innocent individuals may confess due to:

o Coercive interrogation tactics

o Fatigue

o Fear

o Authority pressure

• Some develop false memories

• Legal psychologists study:

o Interrogation methods

o Vulnerable populations

o Prevention strategies

Family Forensic Psych

• Legal issues involving family systems

• High emotional and ethical complexity

Common Case Types

• Child custody evaluations

• Adoption

• Divorce and relocation disputes

• Guardianship

• Juvenile justice

• Elder law

Modern Considerations

• Increasing family diversity

• Legal changes affecting:

o Marriage

o Reproductive rights

o End-of-life decisions

Role of Psychologists

• Assess family functioning

• Provide recommendations to courts

• Educate legal professionals

• Protect best interests of children

Psychology of Crime & Delinquency

• Studies causes and patterns of criminal behavior

• Applies to:

o Juveniles

o Adults

Key Concepts

• Crime is influenced by:

o Learning

o Cognition

o Social environment

• Risk factors include:

o Academic failure

o Peer rejection

o Abuse or neglect

o Chaotic home environments

Emphasis

• Prevention over punishment

• Evidence-based intervention

• Long-term behavioral change

Victimology and Victim Services

• Study of individuals harmed by crime

• Harm may be:

o Physical

o Psychological

o Social

o Financial

Terminology

• “Victim” = common in research

• “Survivor” = empowerment-focused

Psychological Impact

• Trauma

• Anxiety and depression

• Long-term health consequences

Role of Psychologists

• Treatment

• Research

• Program evaluation

• Advocacy

Correctional Psych

• Mental health within the justice system

• Populations include:

o Incarcerated individuals

o Probation/parole populations

Roles

• Psychological assessment

• Treatment planning

• Risk evaluation

• Research on incarceration effects

Key Statistics

• Over 70% have mental illness or substance use disorder

• 1 in 3 has serious mental illness

• Incarceration often worsens symptoms

Ethics and Bias in Forensic Psych

Common Ethical Challenges

• Dual relationships

• Conflicts of interest

• Confidentiality limits

• Telepsychology concerns

• Assessment vs. treatment roles

Types of Bias

• Hindsight bias

• Confirmation bias

• Adversarial allegiance

• Cultural and racial bias

Ethical Responsibility

• Bias awareness is mandatory

• Continuous training required

• Guided by APA ethics and specialty guidelines

Education, Training, and Licensure

Educational Pathways

• Bachelor’s degree:

o Foundation only

• Master’s degree:

o Limited practice roles

• Doctoral degree:

o Required for independent practice

Training

• Internship:

o Essential

o Forensic settings preferred

• Postdoctoral specialization common

Licensure

• State-specific

• Determines scope of practice

Why do we have laws

• Laws function as formal mechanisms for regulating behavior within society.

• They serve four primary purposes:

o Social order: establish predictable rules for behavior.

o Protection: safeguard individual rights, property, and bodily integrity.

o Conflict resolution: provide structured methods for resolving disputes.

o Accountability: assign consequences for violations.

• Laws are not static; they evolve with:

o Social values

o Scientific knowledge (including psychological research)

o Ethical standards

• Legal psychology examines how laws are created, interpreted, applied, and experienced by people

Psychological Approach to law

• Legal psychology focuses on behavior within legal contexts, rather than legal doctrine alone.

• Emphasizes that behavior cannot be understood in isolation.

• Based on Kurt Lewin’s principle:

o B = f(P, E)

§ Behavior is shaped by the interaction between the person and the environment.

• Integrates multiple psychological perspectives:

o Cognitive: decision-making, memory, perception, reasoning.

o Social: group dynamics, bias, persuasion, authority.

o Behavioral: learning histories, reinforcement, compliance.

• Applies psychological science to understand:

o Criminal behavior

o Victim responses

o Eyewitness memory

o Jury decision-making

o Judicial reasoning

Dual-Court System

• The U.S. has two parallel court systems:

o State courts

o Federal courts

• These systems operate independently but may overlap.

Federal Courts

• Have limited jurisdiction, meaning they can only hear specific types of cases.

• Handle cases involving:

o The U.S. Constitution

o Federal statutes

o Disputes between states

o Disputes between citizens of different states (diversity jurisdiction)

• Specialized federal courts address:

o Bankruptcy

o Immigration

o Patents

• Prosecute federal crimes (e.g., terrorism, interstate drug trafficking)

State Courts

• Handle the majority of legal cases in the U.S.

• Govern violations of state law.

• Include:

o Criminal cases (e.g., assault, theft, homicide)

o Civil cases (e.g., contracts, family law, torts)

• Often include municipal or city courts for minor offenses

Federal-State Overlap

• Some cases involve both systems.

• A single incident may result in:

o State criminal charges

o Federal civil rights charges

• Cases may shift to federal court if constitutional violations are alleged

Psychologist in the legal system direct roles vs consultative roles

Direct Roles

• Serve as expert witnesses in criminal, civil, juvenile, and military courts.

• Provide evaluations and testimony on:

o Competency to stand trial

o Criminal responsibility

o Mental illness

o Memory and eyewitness reliability

o Trauma and PTSD

o Risk of violence or recidivism

Consultative Roles

• Work behind the scenes with attorneys and courts.

• Assist with:

o Jury selection strategy

o Witness preparation

o Case theory development

• Translate psychological research into legally relevant conclusions

Jurisdiction

• Jurisdiction refers to a court’s legal authority to hear a case.

• Determines:

o Which court hears the case

o What types of decisions the court can make

Types of Jurisdiction

• Subject-Matter Jurisdiction

o Authority over specific types of cases (e.g., family, criminal).

• Geographical Jurisdiction

o Authority based on location.

• Limited Jurisdiction

o Minor offenses or preliminary matters.

• General Jurisdiction

o Broad authority over serious civil and criminal cases.

• Appellate Jurisdiction

o Authority to review decisions made by lower courts.

State Courts: Structure and Function

Trial Courts (Lower-Level)

• Handle:

o Misdemeanors

o Traffic offenses

o Small claims

o Preliminary hearings

• Include:

o Municipal courts

o Magistrate courts

Trial Courts (General Jurisdiction)

• Hear serious civil and criminal cases.

• Responsible for:

o Jury trials

o Evidence presentation

o Verdicts

• Court names vary by state (e.g., Circuit, District, Superior)

Intermediate Appellate Courts

• Review trial court decisions for legal error, not factual guilt.

• Focus on:

o Improper procedures

o Evidentiary rulings

o Jury instructions

• Not all states have this level.

State Supreme Court

• Highest court within a state.

• Reviews cases involving:

o State constitutional issues

o Significant legal questions

• Sets binding precedent for lower state courts

People v. Goldstein

involved Andrew Goldstein, a man with a long history of schizophrenia who pushed a woman in front of a New

York City subway train in 1999, killing her. The case raised critical questions about competency to stand trial and criminal

responsibility, as forensic experts evaluated whether Goldstein understood the proceedings and whether his mental illness affected his

responsibility at the time of the offense. Although severe mental illness was clearly present, the court found Goldstein competent and

rejected an insanity defense, ultimately convicting him of second-degree murder. The case is frequently cited in forensic psychology

because it highlights the limits of the insanity defense and the ongoing tension between public safety, mental health treatment

failures, and criminal accountability.

• Background

o Defendant diagnosed with schizophrenia.

o Committed homicide in a public setting.

• Legal Questions

o Was the defendant competent to stand trial?

o Was he legally responsible at the time of the offense?

• Psychological Involvement

o Forensic evaluations assessed:

§ Symptoms of psychosis

§ Insight into behavior

§ Ability to assist counsel

• Significance

o Illustrates tension between mental illness, criminal responsibility, and public safety

re Marriage of LaMusga

was a California Supreme Court case involving a post-divorce child custody dispute in which a mother

sought to relocate with her children to another state, and the father opposed the move. The court relied heavily on psychological

custody evaluations, which examined the children’s attachment relationships, emotional stability, and long-term developmental

needs, particularly the potential impact of reduced contact with the father. The court ultimately ruled that relocation could be harmful

to the children’s psychological well-being and granted the father greater custody, making the case a landmark decision in relocation

disputes and illustrating the central role of psychological expertise in family and custody law.

• Background

o Custody dispute involving parental relocation.

• Legal Issue

o Whether relocation harmed the child’s psychological well-being.

• Psychological Role

o Custody evaluations examined:

§ Attachment relationships

§ Stability

§ Long-term developmental impact

• Significance

o Demonstrates the court’s reliance on psychological expertise in family law.

Federal Courts

• U.S. District Courts

o Trial courts of the federal system.

• U.S. Courts of Appeals

o Review district court decisions.

• U.S. Supreme Court

o Selectively hears cases involving major constitutional issues.

Forensic Psych in Federal Courts

• Common roles include:

o Competency evaluations

o Insanity assessments

o Sentencing recommendations

• Civil cases may involve:

o Workplace discrimination

o Disability claims

• Federal civil commitment:

o Assessing individuals deemed sexually dangerous or mentally ill

Military Courts

• Governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

• Apply primarily to active-duty service members.

Psychological Roles

• Competency evaluations

• PTSD assessments related to combat

• Fitness-for-duty evaluations

• Risk assessments

• Sexual assault evaluations

Juvenile Couts

• Handle cases involving minors, typically under age 18.

• Emphasize rehabilitation over punishment.

Key Characteristics

• Informal proceedings

• Confidential records

• Focus on treatment and development

Psychological roles in juvenile courts

• Competency to stand trial evaluations

• Mental health assessments

• Risk and recidivism assessments

• Transfer evaluations (juvenile vs adult court)

• Treatment and placement recommendations

Pretrial stage of judicial process

• Case investigation

• Motions (e.g., competency, suppression of evidence)

• Plea negotiations

• Psychological evaluations frequently occur here.

trial stage of judicial process

• Jury selection

• Evidence presentation

• Witness testimony

• Expert testimony by psychologists.

disposition (sentencing) of judicial process

• Criminal cases:

o Guilty verdict → sentencing

o Not guilty verdict → case ends

• Civil cases:

o Remedies and damages awarded

o Psychological harm may affect compensation

• Juvenile cases:

o Disposition focuses on rehabilitation.

Appellate stage of judicial process

• Focuses on legal errors, not re-litigating facts.

• Prosecutors cannot appeal acquittals.

• Death penalty cases require automatic appeals.

• Psychologists may contribute through amicus curiae briefs

Amicus Curiae Briefs

• “Friend of the court” briefs filed by non-parties.

• Provide scientific and policy expertise.

• Common issues:

o Eyewitness misidentification

o Civil commitment

o Child testimony

o Forced medication

o Discrimination

Civil commitment- is a legal process through which an individual is involuntarily hospitalized or placed under court-ordered

treatment because they are found to have a mental illness or mental abnormality that makes them a danger to themselves or

others, or unable to care for their basic needs. Unlike criminal incarceration, civil commitment is not a punishment and does not

require a criminal conviction; instead, it is justified on the grounds of public safety and the individual’s need for treatment. Civil

commitment requires legal due process protections, including evaluations by mental health professionals and periodic court review,

and confinement may continue only as long as the person remains both mentally ill and dangerous

Jury Selection (Voir Dire)

• Process of questioning potential jurors.

• Goal: identify bias and ensure impartiality.

Juror Removal

• Peremptory challenges

o No stated reason, limited in number.

• Challenges for cause

o Specific bias or conflict identified.

Scientific Jury Selection

• Uses social science to inform juror selection.

• Methods include:

o Community attitude surveys

o Demographic analysis

o Psychographic profiling

o Focus groups and mock juries

• Effectiveness is debated; evidence often outweighs strategy

Disposition and Sentencing

• Judges may rely on:

o Presentence Investigation (PSI) reports

o Risk assessments

• Psychological evaluations inform:

o Incarceration vs treatment

o Probation decisions

Expert Witnesses

• Governed by standards for scientific reliability.

• Psychologists testify on:

o PTSD

o Memory

o Trauma

o Risk

• Credibility influenced by:

o Clinical experience

o Transparency

o Professional demeanor

Dueling Experts

• Occurs when opposing sides present conflicting expert testimony.

• Raises concerns about:

o Objectivity

o “Hired gun” perceptions

• Courts rely on cross-examination to evaluate credibility

Confidentiality in Forensic Psych

• In court-ordered evaluations:

o The court is the client.

• Confidentiality is limited.

• Informed consent is still required.

• Therapy and forensic evaluation roles must remain separate

Risk Assessment

• Evaluates likelihood of future harm.

• Used in:

o Bail decisions

o Sentencing

o Civil commitment

o Parole decisions

• Goal is risk estimation, not prediction.

Assessment Approaches

• Clinical judgment

• Actuarial tools

• Structured Professional Judgment (SPJ)

Ethical foundations of Competency Evaluations

• Competency evaluations are high-stakes forensic assessments with direct legal consequences.

• Ethical practice requires:

o Use of validated and appropriate assessment tools

o Clear acknowledgment of instrument limitations

o Avoiding overstatement of findings or certainty

o Distinguishing clinical opinion from legal conclusions

• The evaluator’s role is to assist the court, not advocate for either side.

• Reports must be written in clear, non-technical language to avoid misleading judges or juries.

• Ethical tension often exists between:

o Clinical compassion for impaired defendants

o Legal standards requiring functional competence, not wellness

What is Competency

• Competency to Stand Trial (CST) refers to a defendant’s current ability to:

o Understand the legal proceedings

o Assist their attorney in a rational manner

• Competency is:

o Not a diagnosis

o Not about guilt or innocence

o Not about mental illness alone

• A defendant may be severely mentally ill yet still competent, or minimally symptomatic yet incompetent due to cognitive or

neurological impairment.

Competency as Mitigation

A woman with a documented history of neurological impairment drove onto a sidewalk, killing one person and injuring others.

Although she pleaded guilty, a neuropsychological evaluation revealed that long-standing traumatic brain injury affected her

coordination and motor control. The court accepted this evidence as a mitigating factor at sentencing, imposing the minimum

sentence allowed by law.

Key takeaway:

• Psychological evaluations may influence sentencing, even when competency itself is not disputed.

• Neuropsychological impairments are often under-recognized in criminal cases

Core competency related issues forensic psych assess

• Competency to Stand Trial (CST)

• Competency crisis and system overload

• Fitness evaluations (legal vs. clinical functioning)

• Restoration of competency

• Conflicting expert opinions (“dueling opinions”)

• Malingering and response distortion

Competency to Stand Trial (CST): Scope and Prevalence

• CST is the most common forensic mental health evaluation in the U.S.

• Approximately 60,000–100,000 CST evaluations are conducted annually.

• Applies to:

o Felonies and misdemeanors

o Not limited to serious or violent offenses

• Referral sources include:

o Defense attorneys

o Prosecutors

o Judges

• Roughly 80% of defendants are competent, while ~20% are found incompetent

Legal Standard for competency

• The legal test for CST focuses on functional legal abilities, not diagnosis.

• Two required capacities:

o Ability to consult with an attorney with rational understanding

o Rational and factual understanding of the proceedings

• Emphasis is on present functioning, not past mental health history.

• This standard is used across most U.S. jurisdictions and internationally

Competency crisis

• CST referrals have increased substantially over time.

• Systems face:

o Limited forensic hospital beds

o Long waitlists for evaluation and restoration

o Defendants jailed longer than their potential sentences

• Restoration services are expensive:

o Hundreds of millions of dollars annually

o Average cost per case exceeds $30,000

• These delays raise constitutional and ethical concerns regarding due process

Where and How CST Evaluations Occur

• Common evaluation settings:

o Jails (brief screenings)

o Outpatient clinics

o Forensic hospitals

o Increasingly, telepsychology

• Evaluation methods typically include:

o Clinical interview

o Review of records

o Limited psychological testing

• Direct observation of attorney–defendant interactions is sometimes used but not standard.

• Outpatient evaluations are increasing due to lower cost, but:

o Most defendants found incompetent still require inpatient restoration

What Triggers a Competency Referral

• Indicators prompting referral:

o History of serious mental illness

o Bizarre or disorganized behavior

o Delusions, hallucinations, or suicide attempts

o Intellectual disability or cognitive decline

o Traumatic brain injury or neurocognitive disorder

• Emotional distress alone is not sufficient unless it interferes with legal functioning.

• Referral type matters:

o Private evaluations → report shared only with defense

o Court-ordered evaluations → report shared with all parties

Conducting a Competency Evaluation

• No single standardized method exists.

• Typical components:

o Competency-focused interview

o Assessment of legal knowledge

o Evaluation of reasoning and decision-making

• Ethical requirements:

o Explain limits of confidentiality

o Avoid discussion of the crime unless directly relevant

• Judges accept evaluator recommendations in ~90% of cases.

• When evaluators disagree, courts often err on the side of finding incompetence

Challenges in Competency Evaluations

• Many clinicians lack specialized CST training.

• Few graduate programs focus specifically on competency work.

• Research shows:

o Wide variability in methods and conclusions

o No consensus on best practices

• Important but often overlooked:

o Neuropsychological conditions

o Medical comorbidities

o Medication side effects

• These factors may significantly impair legal functioning but are under-assessed

Key Considerations and Disparities

• CST evaluations apply to a broad range of conditions, not just psychosis.

• Legal strategy influences referrals and disclosure decisions.

• Racial disparities exist:

o Black and Hispanic defendants more likely to be:

▪ Referred for inpatient evaluation

▪ Found incompetent

• Raises concerns about systemic bias and unequal access to alternatives

Competency Assessment tools

• Over a dozen tools exist, but formal testing is rarely used.

• Most evaluations rely heavily on clinical interview.

• Tools are aids, not replacements for professional judgment.

• Limitations include:

o Limited validation

o Cost and time demands

o Lack of standardization across jurisdictions

Malingering in competency evaluations

• Malingering involves intentional exaggeration or fabrication of symptoms for legal advantage.

• Estimated in up to 17% of forensic cases.

• Common red flags:

o Inconsistent symptom presentation

o Overly dramatic or stereotyped symptoms

o Poor effort or noncompliance

• Ethical caution:

o Premature accusations can bias conclusions

• Best practice requires:

o Multiple data sources

o Collateral records

o Validity testing when appropriate

restoration to competency

• About 20% of defendants evaluated are found incompetent.

• Restoration aims to:

o Restore legal competence, not cure mental illness

• Common methods:

o Psychotropic medication

o Legal education programs

o Outpatient competency restoration (when feasible)

• Average restoration time:

o 3–6 months

o Longer when systems are backlogged

limits on restoration

• Some individuals—especially those with intellectual disability—may never be restorable.

• Long-term detention without likelihood of restoration violates due process.

• Courts cannot hold defendants indefinitely on incompetency grounds

Special Populations and System Gaps

• Individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities:

o Often struggle with abstract legal concepts

o Have low restoration success rates

• Long-term competency schools show limited effectiveness.

• Diversion programs and mental health courts are often more appropriate.

• Policy shift needed toward rehabilitation rather than repeated evaluation cycles

Insanity: A Legal Excuse

• Insanity addresses mental state at the time of the offense, not trial.

• Insanity is:

o A legal excuse

o Not a justification

• Requires impairment of criminal intent (mens rea).

• Insanity and competency are legally distinct but often confused

Insanity Standards

• No single national standard.

• Common tests include:

o Right/Wrong (cognitive awareness)

o Volitional control (ability to control behavior)

o Product of mental illness

o Model Penal Code standard

• Some states have abolished the insanity defense entirely, allowing mental illness only to negate intent.

Insanity Defense in Practice

• Insanity pleas are rare (1–3% of felony cases).

• Success rates are low.

• Acquittal does not mean freedom:

o Most defendants are civilly committed

• Judges tend to be more receptive than juries.

• Jurors often misunderstand NGRI outcomes

Treatment After NGRI

• Most individuals found NGRI are civilly committed.

• Continued confinement requires:

o Mental illness

Forensic Psychology: Criminal Courts- Amara Mason, B.S., B.A.

o Ongoing dangerousness

• Periodic reviews are mandatory.

• Release requires proof that both conditions no longer exist.

• Some individuals remain hospitalized for decades

Other Psychological Defenses

• Beyond insanity, defendants may raise:

o PTSD

o Automatism (e.g., sleepwalking)

o Dissociative disorders

o Extreme emotional disturbance

• Acceptance varies by jurisdiction.

• These defenses often influence:

o Sentencing

o Diversion eligibility

o Treatment placement

Sentencing and the Role of Psychologists

• Psychological input at sentencing is increasing.

• Evaluations may address:

o Treatment needs

o Risk assessment

o Neuropsychological mitigation

• In death penalty cases, future dangerousness assessments may be required

Indeterminate vs. Determinate Sentencing

• Indeterminate sentencing:

o Focuses on rehabilitation

o Allows parole consideration

• Determinate sentencing:

o Fixed terms

o Limited discretion

• Overcrowding and constitutional concerns have prompted reforms.

• Mental illness may still mitigate sentences

Sex Offender Evaluations and Civil Commitment

• Psychologists conduct psychosexual assessments including:

o Risk of reoffense

o Treatment needs

o Supervision planning

• Sexually Violent Predator (SVP) laws allow post-sentence civil commitment.

• Controversial due to:

o Low recidivism rates for some offenders

o Weak treatment provision

o Blurred line between punishment and prevention

Ethical Controversies in SVP Commitment

• Some committed individuals lack diagnosable mental illness.

• Static risk factors dominate decisions.

• Commitment may rely on minimal expert agreement.

• Professional organizations differ in their stance on SVP laws.