burden of proving the defendant’s insanity on the
defense rather than requiring the prosecution to
prove the defendant’s sanity. In several states now,
a verdict ofguilty but mentally ill(GBMI) is available
to jurors in addition to the guilty, not guilty, and
NGRI verdicts (Constanzo, 2004). Under the
GBMI verdict, the convicted is sent to a psychiatric
facility for treatment. If eventually judged to be
sane, the individual is sent to prison to serve what
is left of the sentence.BOX19-2 Clinical Psychologist Perspective: David DeMatteo, J.D., Ph.D.Dr. DeMatteo is an Assistant Professor of Psychology
and Co-Director of the JD/PhD Program in Law and
Psychology at Drexel University. He also has a second-
ary faculty appointment at Drexel University’s Earle
Mack School of Law. Dr. DeMatteo’s primary research
interests include drug policy, interventions for criminal
offenders, and psychopathy, and his research has been
funded by several state and federal agencies. Dr.
DeMatteo has published more than 70 articles and
book chapters, co-authored 3 books, and given over
100 professional presentations. He serves on the Edi-
torial Boards of two journals and is an Associate Editor
forLaw and Human Behavior. Dr. DeMatteo is cur-
rently Chair of APA’s Committee on Legal Issues, and
he is the representative for APA Division 41 (American
Psychology-Law Society) on the APA Council of
Representatives.
Dr. DeMatteo provided responses to several ques-
tions we posed concerning his background and assess-
ment of the field of forensic psychology.What originally got you interested in the field of
forensic psychology?
During college, I developed an interest in how social
science research and psychological practice could be
used to influence the legal process. This stemmed from
longstanding interests in how mental health disorders
and criminal behavior may be related, and how mental
health professionals might be useful in addressing
some of the causes and correlates of criminal behavior.
So I was torn between pursuing a career in law or
psychology because my interests seemed to lie squarely
at the intersection of both of these professions. Fortu-
nately, I found out about a graduate program—one of
only three such programs in the U.S. at that time—that
enabled students to simultaneously pursue a JD and a
PhD in clinical psychology over a 7-year course of study.
Although my primary professional identity was firmly
on the psychology side, I wanted to attend law school
so I could develop the analytical and writing skills of a
lawyer. Plus, my research and clinical interests were
clearly forensic in nature, and although a law degree isnot necessary for forensic research or practice, I
believed that legal training would strengthen my skill
set, enhance my credibility among legal professionals,
and ultimately improve my marketability.Describe what activities you are involved in as a
forensic psychologist.
As a faculty member at a large university, I maintain an
active schedule of teaching, research, writing, and ser-
vice activities. I teach courses to a variety of students at
Drexel, including undergraduates, MS students in psy-
chology, PhD students in clinical psychology, JD/PhD
students, and law students. My undergraduate course
focuses on substance abuse, while my graduate teach-
ing load includes courses on advanced statistics and
psychopharmacology. I also teach a course on mental
health law to law students and JD/PhD students.
Besides teaching, I maintain an active research agenda
supported by various sources of state and federal
funding, and I spend a good deal of time doing inter-
nal administrative and committee work (e.g., thesis/
dissertation committees, departmental committees, co-
directing the JD/PhD Program) and work in the field of
forensic psychology (e.g., editorial boards, Executive
Committee of APA Division 41, Chair of APA’s Com-
mittee on Legal Issues).
In terms of applied work, I conduct forensic men-
tal health assessments of both juveniles and adults
involved in the state and federal criminal justice sys-
tems. These evaluations address a variety of legal
issues, including state and federal sentencing, capital
sentencing, mental state at the time of the offense,
competence to stand trial, competence to waive
Mirandarights, risk for violence, and juvenile waiver
(i.e., whether a juvenile’s case should be heard in adult
court or juvenile court). After being hired by an attor-
ney or appointed by the court, I conduct a thorough
evaluation (the elements of which differ based on the
legal issue being addressed), and then typically com-
municate my findings to the attorney or court via a
written report and sometimes court testimony. I also
occasionally consult with attorneys by reviewing546 CHAPTER 19