Emergence of Forensic Psychology as a Recognized Subfield 403psychologist must share the results with the employer
(Ogloff, 1999, p. 407). Another issue of concern is the scope
of the psychologist’s competence and the danger that may
arise from the temptation (perhaps encouraged by an attor-
ney) to testify or work outside of the boundaries of one’s
competence. The APA Ethics Code declares that psycholo-
gists must provide services only within the boundaries
of their competence, and the Specialty Guidelines note that
“forensic psychologists have an obligation to present to
the court, regarding the specific matters to which they will
testify, the boundaries of their competence” (Specialty
Guideline III[B]).
The politically charged issue of the use of intelligence
tests with different ethnic groups is an instance where values,
psychological data, and expert opinions have clashed in the
courts. In a California case, Larry P. v. Riles(1972), the trial
court heard expert testimony from many eminent psycholo-
gists and measurement experts. Some of the experts argued
that the tests upon which school determinations were based
were racially and culturally biased, while other experts con-
curred with the school system that there was no evidence that
tests disfavored minorities because of an inherent bias in their
construction. The trial judge ruled that individual intelligence
tests discriminate against minority children and restricted
their use in California. In contrast, in the later case of PASE v.
Hannon(1980), in which many of the same experts testi-
fied, the trial judge found that such tests did notdiscrimi-
nate against minorities. What was particularly troubling to
some (e.g., Bersoff, 1986) was the apparently questionable
nature of the expert testimony. The judge in Hannonwas very
critical of the experts’ testimony and wrote that “None of the
witnesses in this case has so impressed me with his or her
credibility or expertise that I would feel secure in basing a
decision simply on his or her opinion” (quoted in Bersoff,
1986, p. 161). Bersoff asserted that “This perception of the
behavior of the expert witnesses who testified before Judge
Grady raises some formidable and disturbing, if not painful,
ethical issues. If he is correct in that perception, each of the
psychologists who offered opinions out of a ‘doctrinaire
commitment to a preconceived idea’ rather than as a ‘result of
scientific inquiry’ may be guilty of violating several impor-
tant provisions of the Ethical Principles of Psychologists.”
Another ethical issue that has received considerable atten-
tion in the past three decades is the duty to disclose informa-
tion in order to protect or warn third parties. The California
Supreme Court’s final decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of
the University of California(1976) may be the single court
decision that is best known to psychologists. In this case, a
therapist and university clinic were found liable for failing to
protect an identifiable third party, Tatiana Tarasoff. She was
the sometime girlfriend of a therapy client at the clinic who,
during therapy, made serious threats toward her. The therapist
told the campus police, who talked to the young man and
concluded that he was not dangerous. Ms. Tarasoff was never
told of the man’s threats; two months later he stabbed her to
death. The court ruled that the therapist “bears a duty to exer-
cise reasonable care to protect the foreseeable victim of that
danger [of violence]” (Tarasoff,1976, p. 345). Tarasoff and
related court decisions place some limitations on the therapy
client’s right to complete confidentiality. The legal test for
knowing whether to report a threat is whether the psycholo-
gist knew or should have known (in a professional capacity)
of the client’s dangerousness (Keith-Spiegel & Koocher,
1985). All psychologists have an affirmative duty to report
suspected cases of child sexual abuse and, in many jurisdic-
tions, elder abuse as well. As a consequence, the necessity
of being able to accurately assess risk for violence has as-
sumed great importance to many forensic psychologists
(Applebaum, 1985; Ogloff, 1999). For some, the fear of
adverse legal complications or of malpractice litigation may
have produced changes in practice, such as conducting
“defensive psychotherapy” (Applebaum, 1988).New Roles for Psychologists: Trial ConsultantPsychologists acting as trial consultants (who also may be
called litigation consultants or jury consultants) are hired
most often in civil cases, where substantial amounts of money
may be involved, although their use is increasing in criminal
cases as well. Probably the most visible trial-consultant role is
as a jury consultant who attempts to aid one side to select a
jury that is favorable to its position. The role of jury consul-
tants in the murder trial of O. J. Simpson in 1994–1995 may be
the most widely publicized instance. Other activities of trial
consultants include pretrial evaluation of attorneys’ presenta-
tions, mock-jury research, witness preparation, focus groups,
and community surveys. They may advise their clients on im-
portant areas such as identifying the major issues in the trial,
preparing witnesses for testimony, and advising on jury selec-
tion techniques. Consultants may also attempt to assist in de-
veloping effective opening statements, cross-examination
techniques, and closing statements, or in carrying out survey
research to assess whether the effects of pretrial publicity may
necessitate a change of venue. Trial consultants also may
make presentations to continuing-education seminars for at-
torneys that are intended to help them improve their court-
room presentation skills or jury selection techniques.
The systematic involvement of psychologists in so-called
scientific jury selection began in the early 1970s in a series of
politically charged trials involving persons prosecuted for