Redding R E, Floyd M Y, Hawk G L
Villanova University School of Law, PA 19085-1682, USA.
Behav Sci Law. 2001;19(4):583-94. doi: 10.1002/bsl.455.
The testimony of mental health experts is often important evidence considered by criminal courts in determining issues arising throughout the adjudicative process, but not all evidence provided by experts is equally valid or probative. Using a hypothetical insanity defense case, we compared the preferences of Virginia judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys for different types of forensic mental health evidence, including descriptive and diagnostic testimony, testimony about relevant research and actuarial data, and ultimate issue testimony. In addition, we determined their preferences for different types of mental health professionals. Four key findings emerged. First, many participants preferred that psychiatrists, rather than psychologists or other mental health professionals, conduct forensic evaluations for the court. Second, while participants were interested in most types of mental health evidence, they were primarily interested in clinical diagnosis, followed by an analysis of whether the condition met the relevant legal threshold, and an ultimate opinion on the legal issue. Third, participants were less interested in research or actuarial evidence. Fourth, participants differed in their evidentiary preferences in ways that reflect their respective roles in the adversary system. The findings suggest that while courts and attorneys find traditional clinical testimony useful in criminal cases, they also favor ultimate issue testimony, and view research data or statistically based information as less helpful. Mental health professionals should consider how to educate the courts and bar about the dangers inherent in over-reliance on the conclusory legal testimony of mental health experts, the utility of scientific data as such information becomes more routinely introduced as evidence at trial, and the expertise available from various mental health professionals.
心理健康专家的证词往往是刑事法庭在裁决过程中确定所产生问题时所考虑的重要证据，但并非专家提供的所有证据都同样有效或具有证明力。通过一个假设的精神错乱辩护案例，我们比较了弗吉尼亚州的法官、检察官和辩护律师对不同类型法医心理健康证据的偏好，包括描述性和诊断性证词、关于相关研究和精算数据的证词以及最终问题证词。此外，我们还确定了他们对不同类型心理健康专业人员的偏好。出现了四个关键发现。第一，许多参与者更倾向于由精神病医生而非心理学家或其他心理健康专业人员为法庭进行法医评估。第二，虽然参与者对大多数类型的心理健康证据感兴趣，但他们主要对临床诊断感兴趣，其次是对病情是否符合相关法律门槛的分析，以及对法律问题的最终意见。第三，参与者对研究或精算证据的兴趣较低。第四，参与者在证据偏好上存在差异，这反映了他们在对抗制中的各自角色。研究结果表明，虽然法院和律师发现在刑事案件中传统临床证词很有用，但他们也青睐最终问题证词，并认为研究数据或基于统计的信息帮助较小。心理健康专业人员应考虑如何就过度依赖心理健康专家结论性法律证词所固有的危险、随着此类科学数据在审判中更常规地作为证据引入其效用，以及不同心理健康专业人员所具备的专业知识，对法院和律师进行教育。
