Bank S C
Center for Forensic Psychiatry, USA.
New Dir Ment Health Serv. 1996 Spring(69):5-14. doi: 10.1002/yd.23319960103.
Our democratic principles rest on the belief that truth is discovered through the fair and open combat of ideas in a court of law. When mental health professionals participate in this adversary process as expert witnesses, it is essential for them to understand that attorneys will attempt to impeach their credibility. Mental health professionals who appreciate the spirit and mechanics of courtroom communication will be best prepared to protect the integrity of their testimony. The courtroom communications model provides experts with a conceptual framework utilizing three components: the speaker is the expert, the message is testimony, and the audience is the judge or jury. Within the structure of this model, communication principles from social psychology can be used to enhance the clarity of testimony and to prevent attorneys from distorting the expert's opinions. First and foremost, expert witness testimony must be formulated upon accepted scholarly and ethical standards. To establish credibility, experts must appear knowledgeable and trustworthy to the judge and jury. The expert must come to court prepared for both direct examination and cross-examination; know when to emphasize logic or emotion, tailor speech in order to reach the maximum number of jurors, and remain nondefensive by projecting the same demeanor regardless of which side is conducting the examination. The role of the expert witness is forever changing because the judicial system--like the mental health field--continues to evolve. Although the adversary process has undergone dramatic changes over the past eight hundred years, historical vestiges continue to echo throughout our courtrooms. Today, expert witnesses are the champions of victims and the accused. Legal disputes are increasingly being decided by the battle of the experts who must undergo the ordeal of cross-examination. When you consider the brutality of ancient ordeals, responding to attorneys armed with questions may not seem so daunting.
我们的民主原则基于这样一种信念，即真理是通过在法庭上对各种观点进行公平、公开的交锋而被发现的。当心理健康专业人员作为专家证人参与这一对抗过程时，他们必须明白律师会试图质疑他们的可信度。了解法庭交流精神和机制的心理健康专业人员将最有能力保护其证词的完整性。法庭交流模式为专家提供了一个概念框架，它包含三个要素：说话者是专家，传达的信息是证词，受众是法官或陪审团。在这个模式的框架内，可以运用社会心理学的交流原则来提高证词的清晰度，并防止律师歪曲专家的意见。首先也是最重要的一点，专家证人的证词必须依据公认的学术和道德标准来形成。为了确立可信度，专家必须在法官和陪审团面前显得知识渊博且值得信赖。专家必须为直接询问和交叉询问做好准备；知道何时强调逻辑或情感，调整言辞以打动尽可能多的陪审员，并且无论哪一方进行询问，都要保持同样的举止态度，不做辩解。专家证人的角色一直在变化，因为司法系统——就像心理健康领域一样——在不断演变。尽管对抗程序在过去八百年间发生了巨大变化，但历史遗迹仍在我们的法庭中回响。如今，专家证人是受害者和被告的支持者。法律争端越来越多地由专家之间的较量来决定，而专家们必须经受交叉询问的考验。当你想到古代考验的残酷时，回应律师的提问可能就不会显得那么令人生畏了。
