The Role of Research in Forensic Psychological Testimony: Do Judges Listen?
Titel:
The Role of Research in Forensic Psychological Testimony: Do Judges Listen?
Auteur:
Goldstein, Alan M. Thomson, Marchelle R. Redding, Richard E. Osman, Douglas
Verschenen in:
Journal of forensic psychology practice
Paginering:
Jaargang 3 (2003) nr. 2 pagina's 89-101
Jaar:
2003-03-01
Inhoud:
This article presents a case in which two experts proffered forensic testimony in a criminal hearing in which the defendant was charged with multiple serious felonies, including murder. The prosecution expert would testify that he had diagnosed the defendant as having antisocial personality disorder, which precluded a diagnosis of schizophrenia, and that the defendant was malingering schizophrenic symptoms, which was further evidence that he was not schizophrenic. In contrast, the defense expert would testify that schizophrenia and antisocial personality disorder can and do coexist, and that even schizophrenics can malinger symptoms. While the defense expert based his testimony on a review of the professional and scientific literature, the prosecution expert provided no such evidence in support of his opinions. Yet despite empirically based evidence on these issues, the judge ruled that the testimony of both experts could be admitted and merely represented two differing opinions of qualified experts. After briefly discussing the research supporting the defense expert's opinions, the article focuses on the problem of why judges fail to listen to relevant scientific evidence, and the steps experts and litigants may take to persuade courts of the value of scientifically based professional opinion as compared to clinical testimony lacking such foundation.