Issues of ethics and standards will weigh heavily
in any professional arena that allows for so many
role conflicts, biases, distortions, and subjectivity.
Forensic psychology is just such an arena.
SOME MAJOR ACTIVITIES
OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGISTSThe growth of forensic psychology has thrust the
psychologist into many different roles. We focus on
eight such roles, beginning with the forensic psy-
chologist as expert witness.
The Expert WitnessConsider the following scenario:
Ms. Ferris, an employee of the Diego Pan
Company, was working at her desk on
April 28, 1999. Her supervisor, a Mr.
Smith, stopped by her desk. He had a
history of telling dirty jokes in her pres-
ence, commenting on her physical attri-
butes, and asking about her dating
activities. This day, however, he explicitly
propositioned her and made it clear that if
she wanted to advance in the company,
and indeed even remain employed, she
had better agree to have sexual relations
with him. She refused. Two weeks later,
she was fired. Subsequently, she filed sex-
ual harassment charges against Mr. Smith
and also sought damages for emotional
suffering.
Dr. Miller, a clinical psychologist, was
retained by Ms. Ferris’s attorney. He con-
ducted extensive interviews with Ms.
Ferris and several of her coworkers. He
also administered several tests. Mr. Wright,
a coworker, had inadvertently overheard
the April 28 conversation between Ms.
Ferris and her supervisor and had also
previously observed some of the alleged
sexual harassment.During the trial, Mr. Wright served as a wit-
ness, testifying to the facts with reference to his
own observations. Dr. Miller testified as to his opi-
nions and inferences about emotional damage that
were within the scope of his training and experi-
ence. This illustrates the basic difference between a
lay witness and anexpert witness. The former may
testify only to events witnessed. The latter may
offer opinions and inferences. This goes beyond
merely stating a conclusion. The expert witness
must help the court understand and evaluate evi-
dence or determine a fact at issue (Gutheil, 1998).Qualifications. An expert witness can be anyone
who can provide information that, by its unique-
ness in relation to some science, profession, train-
ing, or experience, is unlikely to be known to the
average juror and that requires expertise to under-
stand (Greene & Heilbrun, 2011). Initially, the
court will decide whether the expert witness may
in fact claim expert status. Often, in the case of
physicians, psychologists, or psychiatrists, a license
is taken as evidence of competence. But if opposing
counsel objects to the witness’s claim to be an
expert, further evidence will typically be presented
regarding competence. Ultimately, it is up to the
judge to decide (Greene & Heilbrun, 2011).
A 1993 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court,
Daubert v. Merrell Dow, established what many
thought would be a more liberal standard for the
admissibility of an expert’s evidence. Briefly, the
standard was changed from“general acceptance”
in the relevant scientific community (theFrye v.
United States,1923, standard) to one of“relevance
and validity”as determined by the trial judge. In
other words, the burden now falls on the judge
to determine what expert evidence is admissible
(Faigman & Monahan, 2005; Faust, Grimm,
Ahern, & Sokolik, 2010). Although this new stan-
dard was intended to be more liberal and flexible, in
many casesDauberthas resulted in more restrictive
criteria for the admissibility of expert testimony.
Trial judges have used the Daubert decision to
exclude various kinds of social science evidence as
“not scientific enough,”even though it would have
been admissible underFrye. Indeed, the field ofFORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY 543