Swimming with the Sharks

 Knowledgeable and Up-to-Date on: a. the laws, regulations, procedures b. latest research c. latest assessments d. rules of evidence  Integrity: Objective, Impartial, Unbiased, Trustworthy  Able to Communicate the Findings Qualities to Have as a Forensic Expert:

Dr. William H. Reid, in the Journal of Psychiatric Practice, Nov. 2012, Vol. 18, No. 6 says, An expert’s opinions should be expressed to a “reasonable degree of medical or psychological certainty.” That legal phrase means “more likely than not.” “A great many experts misunderstand this simple, crucial definition, probably because it differs from the way clinicians usually view “certainty.” Stating an Expert Opinion

Make sure you know about Expert Opinion vs. “Possibility” or Speculation

The main difference is in the role of each one, not necessarily the level of forensic expertise. Therapeutic/Treating Clincian vs. Forensic Clinician

Treating ClinicianForensic Evaluator The mental health practitioner The attorney or the court Therapist-patient privilege Attorney-client and attorney work-product privilege Supportive, accepting, empathetic Neutral, objective, detached Therapeutic/Treating Clincian vs. Forensic Clinician

Therapy techniques for treatment of the impairment Forensic evaluation techniques relevant to the legal claim Diagnostic criteria for the purpose of therapy Evaluation and hypothesis testing are related to the legal issue Information is drawn from the client with little scrutiny Information is critically scrutinized and supplemented by collateral sources of information Treating ClinicianForensic Evaluator

Therapeutic/Treating Clincian vs. Forensic Clinician Treating ClinicianForensic Evaluator Patient structured and relatively less structured than forensic evaluation Evaluator structured and relatively more structured than therapy A helping relationship; rarely adversarial An evaluative relationship; frequently adversarial

Therapeutic/Treating Clincian vs. Forensic Clinician Treating ClinicianForensic Evaluator Therapist attempts to benefit the patient by working within the therapeutic relationship Evaluator advocates for the results and implications of the evaluation. Assists the trier of fact (judge/jury)

Therapeutic/Treating Clincian vs. Forensic Clinician Treating ClinicianForensic Evaluator The basis of the relationship is the therapeutic alliance and critical judgment is likely to impair that alliance The basis of the relationship is evaluative and critical judgment is unlikely to cause serious emotional harm

 Lack of specialized forensic training  Ignorance of specialized psycholegal knowledge  Advocacy for a client or advocacy for a particular agenda as opposed to remaining neutral and objective Clinical Practitioners Who Are Not Trained Well In Forensics

 Failure to use or know about assessments for malingering and its importance  Assuming the attorney will provide the expert with the necessary legal, ethical, and professional information Clinical Practitioners Who Are Not Trained Well In Forensics

 Assuming different jurisdictions are similar in laws and how the laws are implemented  Not appreciating the different levels for the burden of proof between the disciplines and within the legal system Clinical Practitioners Who Are Not Trained Well In Forensics

 Economic concerns – Psychologists are prohibited from working on a contingency-fee basis and may feel that their services will not be used if they do not perform as the hiring attorney requests.  Entering into multiple relationships, such as Expert Witness and Consultant or Expert Witness and Therapist Clinical Practitioners Who Are Not Trained Well In Forensics

 Failure to understand the unique issues associated with confidentiality and privileged communications in forensic work  Failure to appreciate the unique role assessment plays in forensic settings and using inappropriate tests  Inadequate documentation and failing to recognize the need for meticulous notes Clinical Practitioners Who Are Not Trained Well In Forensics

 Failure to use all appropriate sources of information expected in a forensic evaluation, such as interviews with third parties  They may not know how to present themselves in the courtroom.  They may not know how to communicate with the trier of fact. Clinical Practitioners Who Are Not Trained Well In Forensics

Treating Therapist vs. Expert Evaluator Impartial, Objective, Blurring of Roles

Forensic Report Checklist

Presenting the Evidence

Dr. Anthony James Fischetto, Ed.D. Forensic Psychologist Diplomate in Forensic Psychology 475 Philadelphia Ave., P.O. Box 36, Reading, PA Office: (610) Mobile: (610) Fax: (610)