forensic psychology continues to debate whether
Daubertpromotes science in expert testimony, con-
fuses judges and juries, or opens the door for dubi-
ous theories and findings (Faigman & Monahan,
2005; Faust, Grimm, Ahern, & Sokolik, 2010).
In general, the bases of clinical psychological
expertise may include (a) education, formal training,
and subsequent learning; (b) relevant experience,
including positions held; (c) research and publica-
tions; (d) knowledge and application of scientific
principles; and (e) use of special tests and measure-
ments. What is accepted as evidence will vary from
jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Finally, many trial judges
use the following admissibility criteria to decide the
admissibility of expert testimony (Faust et al., 2010):
■ Relevance: The testimony will help prove or
disprove an important issue in the case.
■ Reliability:The testimony must be trustworthy
and valid.
■ Helpfulness:The testimony will aid the jury in
understanding the evidence and in deciding
issues of fact.
■ Fit:The testimony must“fit”the case at hand
and assist the jury in doing its job.
Topics for Expert Testimony. We have already
seen from Table 19-1 how wide the range of topics
suitable for expert testimony really is. This list is by
no means exhaustive, and additional areas for expert
psychological opinion exist. However, experts are
not allowed to state opinions that are the legal pre-
rogative of the jury. For example, the Federal Rule
of Evidence 704(b), while allowing experts to give
their opinions regarding defendants’mental states
and the possible influences on behavior and cogni-
tion, does not allow experts to give conclusions as to
the defendants’sanity or insanity. Therefore, expert
witnesses are prevented from providing“ultimate
opinion”testimony (Green & Helibrun, 2011).
Testifying. Regardless of the topic, testifying in
court can be a harrowing experience for the expert
witness. Anxiety and self-doubt are common as the
expert is tugged by attorneys on both sides of
the issue. Just as the neuropsychologist rarely gets
the easy cases to diagnose, the behavioral expert in
court rarely testifies about simple matters. Publicity,
sensationalism, and the adversarial legal process are
companions not calculated to make the life of the
expert witness an easy one.
An important prelude to testifying is pretrial
preparation. This can sometimes involve many
hours of study, interviewing, testing, and confer-
ences, depending on the case. The expert may be
asked to testify by the court or by counsel for either
a defendant or a plaintiff.
Cross-Examination. Consider the following two
gems that illustrate what cross-examination can be
like (Schwitzgebel & Schwitzgebel, 1980, p. 243):
“Good morning, doctor. I see you are here on
behalf of an accused killer (or‘your fellow
psychologists’) again. How are you today?”
“Doctor, were you paid to perform your
examination? [Yes] How much? [$200 an
hour.] How many hours did you spend in
all? [20 hours.] That’s $4,000, isn’t it,
doctor? [Yes] And in your opinion the
patient was insane on the night of January
26, 1975? [Yes] That’s all, doctor.”
Other equally provocative questions that have
been asked of psychologists serving as expert wit-
nesses include the following:
“Isn’t it true that most of your experiments are
done with rats?”
“You are not a real doctor, are you?”
“You can’t tell what’s going on up here, can
you?”(Opposing attorney points to his
head.)
Several authors (e.g., Blau, 1998; Gutheil, 2004)
provide numerous hints about how the expert witness
should behave in the courtroom, even to the point of
appropriate dress. Schwitzgebel and Schwitzgebel
(1980) summarize their recommended strategies for
coping with cross-examination as follows:
■ Be prepared.
■ Be honest.
■ Admit weaknesses.544 CHAPTER 19