What do forensic psychologists do?

This chapter begins with a discussion of standards for providing written reports of forensic evaluations. It then discusses the competencies involved when forensic psychologists function as formal consultants.

Download Full-text

Specific Testifying Situations

Testimony That Sticks ◽

10.1093/med-psych/9780190467395.003.0020 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 426-444 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Karen Postal

Keyword(s):

Forensic Psychologists ◽

Capital Cases

This chapter offers advice and strategies from seasoned forensic psychologists, neuropsychologists, attorneys, and judges regarding specific testifying situations, including testifying in front of a judge rather than a jury, testifying about a record reviews (when you haven’t met the plaintiff), testifying as a fact witness, and testifying in capital cases.

Download Full-text

Depositions

Testimony That Sticks ◽

10.1093/med-psych/9780190467395.003.0018 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 399-410

Author(s):

Karen Postal

Keyword(s):

Deposition Process ◽

Forensic Psychologists ◽

Court Testimony

What are the differences between testifying in court and testifying in the context of a deposition? Attorneys, judges, and seasoned forensic psychologists and neuropsychologists share their perspectives in this chapter about all phases of deposition testimony. Topics include setting the boundaries of the deposition, goals of deposition testimony, typical differences in tone by cross-examining attorneys during depositions as opposed to court testimony, videotaped depositions versus videotaped testimony, and strategies for experts to maintain their credibility and clarity through the deposition process.

Download Full-text

Relationship with Other Experts

Testimony That Sticks ◽

10.1093/med-psych/9780190467395.003.0016 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 362-377

Author(s):

Karen Postal

Keyword(s):

Court System ◽

Forensic Psychologists

It is the nature of our adversarial court system that two experts will testify that they have come to different conclusions about the same person. How that fundamental disagreement is handled by the expert determines whether jurors must witness a “pissing contest” or are thoughtfully educated about the nature of the disagreement. Depending on the litigation strategy, one or both attorneys may want to incite such a contest. This chapter provides rationale and strategies from seasoned forensic psychologists and neuropsychologists as well as attorneys and judges for avoiding unproductive conflicts while accurately and productively explaining differences in opinions. Experts, attorneys, and judges all agreed that tearing down another expert’s credibility damages your own on the stand.

Download Full-text