- CAVEAT
#1:
Not all psychologists are experts.
- CAVEAT #2:
You would want your psychologist to have experience as testfying as an
expert. Otherwise, the opposition will argue "your guy" or "gal"
is not qualified.
- CAVEAT #3: If it is indisputable that your psychologist has trial experience, expect the opposition to yell, "Hired gun!"
| Experts Expanded site, as of June 21, 1999 |
|
|
| Depending
on the circumstances of your case,
you may need an expert such as a clinical psychologist, forensic
psychologist,
and/or neuropsychologist.
A clinical psychologist practices in that branch of psychology which deals with the diagnosis and treatment of mental, emotional, and behavior disorders. A forensic psychologist is a psychologist who provides psychological services to the courts, to the criminal and civil justice system. Neuropsychologist performs services in that branch of psychology which deals with brain behavior relationships. Neuropsychologists diagnose brain injury, brain disease, in terms of the dysfunction of the brain and that includes cognitive processes such as [target] memory, learning, attention, concentration, language, and, so-to-speak, the higher mental processes. Psychologists conduct psychological and projective personality tests as well as serve as memory experts. In recent years, they have conducted an increased number of studies on memory. Not all the answers have been found, but great progress has been made. Their services are
expensive.
It is
on the
basis of their education, training, and experience that they become
deemed
experts.
A classic answer to the epithet is the exclamation: "I work for money just like you do." It works better against expensive corporate defense lawyers than low-paid criminal prosecutors . . . but the expert can get away with the remark if the correct tone of voice is coupled with the correct body language when it is said. Alternative to Experts Some jurisdictions allow facts and/or conclusions from authoritative books in certain subjects. If you can get agreement by counsel that a book is authoritative, then you might not need an expert for certain information. Review of Jeopardy in the Courtroom. See also Table of Contents of Jeopardy in the Courtroom. Often, in fact, quite often, you can turn the prosecution's expert into yours . . . by cross-examination. A book recommended to become familiar with the guidelines and maxims for an expert witness who is to testify on the stand is Testifying in Court by Stanley L. Brodsky. Read the table of contents below and return here if you decide to purchase it on amazon.com: Testifying in Court. In brief, informal chapters, each arranged topically around one practical principle, the author helps both the veteran expert witness and the novice identify effective modes of preparation for offering testimony, understand the courtroom milieu, and evaluate the effectiveness of testimony before and after the actual experience. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Preface Introduction The
Admit--Deny Becoming
Current Challenges
to Experience: 1. Insufficient Experience Changing Your Mind Child
Sexual Abuse: 1. Lying and Fantasy Client
Dissimulation: 1. Clinical Considerations Collaborative
Criticism The
Direct Examination Elder
Abuse and Neglect Fishing
Expeditions The
Historic Hysteric Gambit The
Idealism Hazard Just Before the Court Appearance The
Language of Testimony: 1. General Principles The
Learned Treatise Gambit Negative Assertions Orientation to the Courtroom Power
and Control: 1. The Process on the Witness Stand The
Primary Source Gambit Quiet Moments on the Stand The Rumpelstiltskin Principle Saying
``I Don't Know'' Termination
of Parental Rights The
Well-Dressed Witness Ziskin & Faust Are Sitting on the Table References |
|