Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

And it goes almost without saying, that unless the

practitioner is candid about all of the above and the

entire examination process, the examiner is putting

the desires of the client ahead of the needs of the

court. Only by being candid can the expert be most

helpful to the court’s understanding of the data col-

lected and opinion formed.

Responsibility

The ethical forensic practitioner has a responsibility to

maintain the integrityof the profession. Specifically,

they provide services in a manner that is respectful to

all parties involved, impartial, accurate, and well doc-

umented. It is important that the ethical practitioner

recognizes the distinct role of the forensic psycholo-

gist and clarifies this role with all parties prior to

undertaking forensic psychological services.

Forensic psychological experts are expected to

refrain from engaging in role conflicts.They should

not provide forensic psychological services when

past, present, or future interests or relationships are

likely to impair their objectivity (albeit unwittingly).

Among the most important role conflicts to avoid is

serving in both a therapeutic and forensic role.

Forensic practitioners document all relevant datain

the course of their examination, beginning from the

moment they can reasonably anticipate that their ser-

vices may be relied on by a trier of fact. Documentation

includes, but is not limited to, letters, handwritten

notes, e-mail correspondence, facsimile, recordings,

test data, and interpretive reports. When provided with

appropriate subpoenas and court orders, all relevant

records are made available to the requesting party.

Accountability and Informed Consent

As soon as is feasible, forensic psychological experts

obtain informed consentfrom all parties involved in

the provision of forensic psychological services.

Informed consent refers to an exchange between the

provider of services and the person being examined.

The ethical forensic practitioner provides the exami-

nee (as well as the examinee’s attorney) and other

recipients of forensic services (e.g., collaterals,

nonparty examinees) with as much information as

possible about the examination process to help the

examinee make an informed decision about whether

or not to participate. This information typically should

include, but is not limited to, the purpose, nature, and

anticipated use of the examination and report, the

impartial nature of the examiner’s role, the anticipated

methods and procedure for addressing the psycholegal

issue, the limitations of scientific knowledge to

address that issue, any potential risks of participation,

the nonconfidential nature of the examination, the vol-

untariness of the examination (if not court ordered),

relevant fee agreements, and the examinee’s rights

and responsibilities.

The Big Picture

The ultimate conceptual goal of good forensic practice

is surprisingly easy to identify. As reflected in Evidence

Rule 702, expert witnesses are in the unique position

among witnesses of being the only witnesses who are

allowed to offer opinions if, among other things, their

opinion testimony “will assist the trier of fact.” Being

misled, having relevant information omitted, hearing

opinions that are weighted unfairly, or in any other way

being presented information by an expert witness that is

distorted rather than trustworthy does not assist the trier

of fact in better understanding the evidence. The goal is

for the court to be able to trust what experts say and to

be able to trust that whatever an expert does say in

offering an opinion adequately reflects all that is rele-

vant regarding that opinion, including all reasonable

perspectives on that opinion.

Jennifer Wheeler

See also Expert Psychological Testimony, Admissibility

Standards; Expert Testimony, Qualifications of Experts;

Forensic Assessment; Mental Health Law; Therapeutic

Jurisprudence

Further Readings

Committee on Ethical Guidelines for Forensic Psychologists.

(1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychologists.

Law and Human Behavior, 15,655–665 (revision draft in

preparation).

Covell, C. N., & Wheeler, J. G. (2006). Revisiting the

irreconciable conflict between therapeutic and forensic:

Implications for sex offender specialists. American

Psychology-Law Society Newsletter, 26, 6–8.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

Greenberg, S. A., & Shuman, D. W. (2007). When worlds

collide: Therapeutic and forensic roles. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 38,129–132.

262 ———Ethical Guidelines and Principles

E-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:42 PM Page 262