Dr. Recupero is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Warren Alpert Medical School, Brown University, and Senior Vice President for Education and Training, Care New England Health System, Providence, RI 02906.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2022 Dec;50(4):517-528. doi: 10.29158/JAAPL.210161-21. Epub 2022 Sep 29.
The COVID-19 pandemic has increased demand for telepsychiatric services. Forensic psychiatrists can expect to receive more requests for assessments conducted via videoconferencing technology in the years to come. Under current rules of evidence in the United States, the testimony of expert witnesses is introduced as a form of scientific evidence and may be challenged by opposing counsel through hearings. In a challenge, courts may evaluate proposed expert testimony through four criteria relating to scientific reliability and validity: whether the testimony is based on methods that emerge from a testable hypothesis, whether the method has been subjected to peer review, the known or potential rate of error associated with the method, and whether the method has achieved general acceptance in the relevant scientific community. To date, courts have not addressed whether testimony based on a telepsychiatric assessment would meet standards of reliability and validity for admission into evidence, as applied in a typical hearing. This article explores the standards and other potential objections to telepsychiatry as they may apply to forensic psychiatric examinations conducted via videoconferencing technology. The discussion also provides suggestions to evaluators to increase the likelihood of such testimony surviving a challenge.
新冠疫情大流行增加了对远程精神病服务的需求。在未来几年,法医精神病学家可能会收到更多通过视频会议技术进行评估的请求。根据美国当前的证据规则,专家证人的证词作为一种科学证据被引入,可能会受到对方律师通过听证会提出的质疑。在质疑中,法院可以通过与科学可靠性和有效性相关的四个标准来评估拟议的专家证词:证词是否基于可检验假设的方法,方法是否经过同行评审,方法与相关科学社区相关的已知或潜在错误率,以及该方法是否已被普遍接受。迄今为止,法院尚未解决基于远程精神病评估的证词是否符合适用于典型听证会上的可靠性和有效性标准,以作为证据被采纳。本文探讨了在通过视频会议技术进行法医精神病检查时可能适用的标准和其他对远程精神病学的潜在反对意见。讨论还为评估人员提供了一些建议,以增加此类证词在质疑中幸存的可能性。