Features used by judges to evaluate expert witnesses for psychological and psychiatric legal issues

A1 Journal article (refereed)


Internal Authors/Editors


Publication Details

List of Authors: Alessandro Tadei, Katarina Finnila, Julia Korkman, Benny Salo, Pekka Santtila
Publisher: ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
Publication year: 2014
Journal: Nordic Psychology
Journal acronym: NORD PSYCHOL
Volume number: 66
Issue number: 4
Start page: 239
End page: 253
Number of pages: 15
ISSN: 1901-2276


Abstract

We examined how judges evaluate four characteristics when choosing an expert witness for a forensic psychological or psychiatric case. We asked 87 judges to read short descriptions of legal cases and asked them to choose the best expert witness from a pool of experts who differed based on the following four criteria: the expert could be a psychologist or a psychiatrist, have or not have work experience, have or not have a leadership role, and have or not have publications in the field. The results showed that the judges considered the expert's work experience as a necessary criterion without which the witness cannot be chosen. Also, they considered having publications in the field as important and covering leadership roles as useless, if not harmful. Further, the judges demonstrated to be accurate in choosing a psychologist or a psychiatrist according to the presented legal case. Analyzing separately the impact of the judges' age and gender on their choosing style, we observed a trend for male judges to value leadership roles and no significant impact of age on the responses given. The study highlights how the selection of expert witnesses is strongly driven by the expert's work experience which, however, may not always be a reliable cue of actual expertise both in the psychological and psychiatric fields.


Keywords

expert's work experience, expert witness selection, judges, judges' reasoning style, psychological and psychiatric testimony

Last updated on 2019-13-12 at 03:26