Flawed science? Two efforts launched to improve scientific validity of psychological test evidence in court

There’s this forensic psychologist, we’ll call him Dr. Harms, who is infamous for his unorthodox approach. He scampers around the country deploying a bizarre admixture of obscure, outdated and unpublished tests that no one else has ever heard of.

Oh, and the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). Dr. Harms never omits that. To him, everyone is a chillingly dangerous psychopath. Even a 30-year-old whose last crime was at age 15.

What’s most bizarre about Dr. Harms’s esoteric method is that he gets away with it. Attorneys may try to challenge him in court, but their protests usually fall flat. Judges rule that any weaknesses in his method should go to the “weight” that jurors give Dr. Harm’s opinions, rather than the admissibility of his tests.

Psychological tests hold a magical allure as objective truth. They retain their luster even while forensic science techniques previously regarded as bulletproof are undergoing unprecedented scrutiny. Based in large part on our briefcases full of tests, courts have granted psychologists unprecedented influence over an ever-increasing array of thorny issues, from future dangerousness to parental fitness to refugee trauma. Behind the scenes, meanwhile, a lucrative test-production industry is gleefully rubbing its hands all the way to the bank.

In other forensic “science” niches such as bite-mark analysis and similar types of pattern matching that have contributed to wrongful convictions, appellate attorneys have had to wage grueling, decades-long efforts to reign in shoddy practice. (See Radley Balko's The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist for more on this.) But leaders in the field of forensic psychology are grabbing the bull by the horns and inviting us to do better, proposing novel ways for us to self-police.

New report slams "junk science” psychological assessments

In one of two significant developments, a group of researchers today released evidence of systematic problems with the state of psychological test admissibility in court. The researchers' comprehensive survey found that only about two-thirds of the tools used by clinicians in forensic settings were generally accepted in the field, while even fewer -- only about four in ten -- were favorably reviewed in authoritative sources such as the Mental Measurements Yearbook.

Despite this, psychological tests are rarely challenged when they are introduced in court, Tess M.S. Neal and her colleagues found. Even when they are, the challenges fail about two-thirds of the time. Worse yet, there is little relationship between a tool’s psychometric quality and the likelihood of it being challenged.

Slick ad for one of a myriad of new psych tests.

“Some of the weakest tools tend to get a pass from the courts,” write the authors of the newly issued report, "Psychological Assessments in Legal Contexts: Are Courts Keeping 'Junk Science' Out of the Courtroom?”

The report, currently in press in the journal Psychological Science in the Public Interest, proposes that standard batteries be developed for forensic use, based on the consensus of experts in the field as to which tests are the most reliable and valid for assessing a given psycholegal issue. It further cautions against forensic deployment of newly developed tests that are being marketed by for-profit corporations before adequate research or review by independent professionals.

"Life or death" call to halt prejudicial use of psychopathy test

In a parallel development in the field, 13 prominent forensic psychologists have issued a rare public rebuke of improper use of the controversial Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) in court. The group is calling for a halt to the use of the PCL-R in the sentencing phase of death-penalty cases as evidence that a convicted killer will be especially dangerous if sentenced to life in prison rather than death.

As I’ve reported previously in a series of posts (here and here, for example), scores on the PCL-R swing wildly in forensic settings based on which side hired the expert. In a phenomenon known as adversarial allegiance, prosecution-retained experts produce scores in the high-psychopathy range in about half of cases, as compared with less than one out of ten cases for defense experts.

Research does not support testimony being given by prosecution experts in capital trials that PCL-R scores can accurately predict serious violence in institutional settings such as prison, according to the newly formed Group of Concerned Forensic Mental Health Professionals. And once such a claim is made in court, its prejudicial impact on jurors is hard to overcome, potentially leading to a vote for execution.

The "Statement of Concerned Experts," whose authors include prominent professionals who helped to develop and test the PCL-R, is forthcoming from the respected journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.

Beware the all-powerful law of unintended consequences

This scrutiny of how psychological instruments are being used in forensic practice is much needed and long overdue. Perhaps eventually it may even trickle down to our friend Dr. Harms, although I have a feeling it won't be before his retirement.

But never underestimate the law of unintended consequences.

The research group that surveyed psychological test use in the courts developed a complex, seemingly objective method to sort tests according to whether they were generally accepted in the field and/or favorably reviewed by independent researchers and test reviewers.

Ironically enough, one of the tests that they categorized as meeting both criteria – general acceptance and favorable review – was the PCL-R, the same test being targeted by the other consortium for its improper deployment and prejudicial impact in court. (Perhaps not so coincidentally, that test is a favorite of the aforementioned Dr. Harms, who likes to score it high.)

The disconnect illustrates the fact that science doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Psychopathy is a value-laden construct that owes its popularity in large part to current cultural values, which favor the individual-pathology model of criminal conduct over notions of rehabilitation and desistance from crime.

It’s certainly understandable why reformers would suggest the development of “standard batteries … based on the best clinical tools available.” The problem comes in deciding what is “best.”

Who will be privileged to make those choices (which will inevitably reify the dominant orthodoxy and its implicit assumptions)?

What alternatives will those choices exclude? And at whose expense?

And will that truly result in fairer and more scientifically defensible practice in the courtroom?

It’s exciting that forensic psychology leaders are drawing attention to the dark underbelly of psychological test deployment in forensic practice. But despite our best efforts, I fear that equitable solutions may remain thorny and elusive.

Psychologist sues California prisons over anti-LGBT harassment

Housing unit at Vacaville

Prisons are not known as bastions of healing energy. One of the challenges faced by prison clinicians in the violent and hypermasculine culture of prison is how to uphold their professional ethics when they witness abuse of prisoners by staff. Psychologists may feel internally conflicted, but they rarely file formal complaints that might jeopardize their careers or even their personal safety.

So a lawsuit brought by a California psychologist against the Department of Corrections for alleged harassment of sexual minority prisoners is both rare and potentially groundbreaking.

Lori Jespersen, who identifies as “an openly genderqueer lesbian,” states that she was harassed and ostracized after she began blowing the whistle on rampant mistreatment of transgender and gay prisoners at the California Medical Facility at Vacaville.

Examples of prisoner abuse alleged in her lawsuit, filed this week in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, included an instance in which three prison employees “outed” one of Dr. Jespersen's transgender patients on Facebook, providing the prisoner's name and location, identifying her as a mental health patient, and referring to her as “he/she” and “that thing.”

In another alleged incident, a prison employee left a door unlocked while a gay prisoner of color was showering, enabling another prisoner who had been assaulting sexual minority prisoners to enter the shower and assault him. When Dr. Jespersen filed a report under the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA), she says it was never investigated. 

Dr. Jespersen alleges that due to her efforts to call attention to the abuse of LBGT prisoners, she was subjected to constant name-calling and threats of violence, including being locked alone on a housing unit with dangerous rapists. She stated the harassment caused her anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance and weight gain, and that she now “lives in constant fear of violence and harassment at work and at home.”

Transgender prisoner at Vacaville

Dr. Jespersen, 41, went to work for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in 2008, the same year she became licensed. The following year, she transferred to the Medical Facility at Vacaville, which has specialized programming for transgender prisoners.  

No safe haven?

If true, her allegations are especially disturbing in that Vacaville has long been regarded as a haven for transgender prisoners. In 1999, during the height of the AIDS epidemic, it became one of only two prisons in the country with specialized medical services for trans prisoners, the majority of whom were infected with HIV.

Dr. Jespersen’s attorney, Jennifer Orthwein, a former forensic psychologist whose practice focuses on gender and sexual orientation discrimination, said that the main goal of the lawsuit is to bring attention to the issue of systemic discrimination, in order to compel a cultural change.

“This case really has the potential to shine a spotlight on what is the key barrier to making progress to protecting vulnerable inmates in these facilities,” echoed Shannon Minter, the legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, in an interview with public radio’s The California Report, “and that is this prison culture of silence and retaliation.”  

Trans prisoner at CDCR, UC Irvine study

Transgender prisoners are more than 13 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than the general prison population, according to a 2009 study by hate crimes scholar Valerie Jenness at UC Irvine’s Department of Criminology. About 59 percent of transgender prisoners in California reported being sexually assaulted, compared to less than 5 percent of other prisoners. 

Allegations of prisoner mistreatment are not new for California’s massive prison system, which has been under federal oversight for more than a decade due to chronic shortcomings in the treatment of mentally ill and low-functioning prisoners.

The lawsuit also comes at the same moment as a major power shift in the direction of the California Medical Facility. Under the state’s 2017-2018 budget, the intensive 24-hour inpatient psychiatric program at Vacaville and two other prisons has been shifted from the Department of State Hospitals to the Department of Corrections, which has been awarded an extra $254 million and nearly 2,000 new jobs to run them. The shift has caused consternation among mental health personnel, who worry about the quality of psychiatric care and the potential for increased suicides under CDCR management.

Prison psychologist awarded $1 million over racial bias

Although it is rare for prison psychologists to engage in whistle-blowing or file lawsuits, the last time such a case went to trial, the jury awarded the psychologist $945,480 in damages for racial discrimination, a judgment that was upheld unanimously on appeal.  

That case was especially disturbing, in that by all accounts Terralyn Renfro was a highly dedicated clinician who went above and beyond her formal duties in her desire to rehabilitate the men in the California prisons where she worked as a contract psychologist. Indeed, it was her very zeal that apparently cost her her career.

According to testimony at her trial, her supervisors did not approve of her attempts to facilitate prisoner self-help groups. They were especially upset that she had set up a self-help library, which became very popular with prisoners at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione.

The manner of Dr. Renfro's firing was humiliating. Without warning, a prison bureaucrat walked up to her one day and handed her a termination notice giving her 75 minutes to leave the prison or be physically ousted by guards. He stayed by her side and escorted her out the gates and to her car. A “DO NOT HIRE” note was placed in her file, so she was repeatedly rejected for jobs at other state prisons. No one ever explained who placed the note, or why.

The Third District appellate court upheld the jury’s nearly $1 million verdict against the prison system for racial discrimination in the firing. Dr. Renfro was the only African American psychologist at Mule Creek Prison at the time.

“Discrimination does not always present as in a scene from To Kill a Mockingbird or The Birth of a Nation,” the appellate court noted. “Even the most racially intolerant manager will often appreciate the need for circumspection, so smoking guns are rarely found.... [T]he jury drew a reasonable inference of discrimination from a pattern of deception, obfuscation, and mistreatment.”

But from the information in the record, the larger impetus for Dr. Renfro’s firing was her zealousness in prioritizing the interests of the prisoners in her care over those of the bureaucrats to whom she reported. The same behavior, perhaps, of which Dr. Jespersen may ultimately be deemed guilty.

* * * * *

The complaint in Jespersen vs. CDCR is online HERE.  The appellate opinion in Renfro vs. CDCR is HERE.

Surprise reversal in "killing and culpability" self-defense case

Judge slams defense lawyer as inept, dishonest 

Four years ago, I presented a reader participation exercise, "On Killing and Culpability," featuring the case of a young working-class man who stabbed a drunken Berkeley fraternity man to death during a street brawl. Even though 20-year-old Andrew Hoeft-Edenfield only pulled out a knife after he was surrounded by a large and hostile crowd that was closing in on him, jurors rejected his self-defense claim and found him guilty of second-degree murder. In a case that later garnered national attention as part of the debate over what constitutes self defense, he was sentenced to 16 years in prison. 

Yesterday, a judge pulled no punches in overturning the conviction, which he described as a product of the defense attorney's incompetence and deceit. The ruling came in response to a state Supreme Court mandate that the case be reviewed for possible attorney misconduct.

It turns out that there was a lot more going on behind the scenes of the legal case than the public was privy to at the time.

Attorney Yolanda Huang demonstrated a "breathtaking level of disingenuousness, evasiveness and apparent dishonesty," wrote Alameda County Superior Court Judge Larry Goodman in his scathing opinion; her lack of qualifications coupled with her "unexplainable arrogance" created "a complex web of deception, misrepresentation, disloyalty, and self-interest."

Huang's son and the defendant were close friends, and Huang accepted the case pro bono. Her ultimate goal, Judge Goodman noted, was to sue the UC Berkeley fraternity system, which she believed was arrogantly undermining the safety and security of Berkeley residents.

She'll get no argument from me on that score. As revealed in a powerful Atlantic expose, tragedies such as this are endemic to the Greek system, which typically escapes culpability for the results of the drunken debauchery that many fraternities promote.

The problem was that her "apparent obsession" with the fraternity system created a profound conflict of interest: If Hoeft-Edenfield admitted culpability by accepting a plea bargain, her chances of a successful lawsuit would be greatly diminished.

Thus, as the judge meticulously delineated in his 56-page opinion, she rejected all efforts to strike a deal, despite her client's wishes to do so and despite a reasonable offer from the prosecution of a 12-year sentence in exchange for a guilty plea to manslaughter.

Her missteps were not for lack of good advice.

In remarkable testimony at a four-day evidentiary hearing last month, two defense attorneys and a prominent jury consultant testified that at a strategy session convened by Huang, they correctly forecasted that her client would be convicted if he did not take the witness stand to explain his actions on that fateful night. When Huang responded that Hoeft-Edenfield, a special education student, was too unintelligent and easily led to testify, prominent defense attorney M. Gerald Schwartzbach advised her to settle the case. Also present at that meeting were experienced homicide attorney Rebecca Young of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office and a senior litigation consultant, Lois Haney.

Judge Larry Goodman

Instead of following the sage advice of these experienced professionals, Huang -- who had never handled a murder case -- barreled ahead to trial, so confident of Hoeft-Edenfield's vindication that she failed to warn her client of the risks. Instead, "she continued to mislead [him] into thinking that the worst possible consequence of going to trial is that he would get a voluntary manslaughter conviction," even going so far as to send his parents to the jail to talk him into proceeding to trial. 

I've made the opinion available online (HERE). By way of full disclosure, I've known Judge Goodman from way back in my days as a newspaper reporter and have always found him to be a straight shooter.

The Alameda County District Attorney's Office now has 30 days to decide whether to offer Hoeft-Edenfield its original 12-year plea deal; otherwise, the case could proceed to a retrial for second-degree murder. (The jury acquitted the defendant of first-degree murder.) Meanwhile, the State Bar of California will review Judge Goodman's findings to determine whether Huang should face discipline.

* * * * *

Thanks to Henry Lee of the San Francisco Chronicle for breaking the news. My prior reports on the case include:

• Killing and culpability: A reader participation exercise (April 14, 2010) 
• Race, class, and self defense: Berkeley fraternity case spotlighted (July 21, 2010) 
• "Killing and culpability" sentences handed down (June 16, 2010)

(c) Copyright Karen Franklin 2014 - All rights reserved

Invitation to social media and ethics workshop June 7

Training by Keely Kolmes and Karen Franklin

Do you ever stop and think about your professional use of social media -- whether Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, email listservs, or even your own website or blog?

Hopefully, the answer is "yes."

Social media offer unprecedented professional opportunities. But maintaining one's privacy, reputation and ethical bearings can also be challenging when navigating the Internet's unpredictable currents.

Which is why my local psychological association has decided to host a training on the topic of "Ethics, Pitfalls, and Emergent Opportunities in Social Media."

I would like to issue a special invitation to all of my blog subscribers and readers to attend this continuing education workshop in the San Francisco Bay Area on Saturday, June 7. I am especially excited because I am co-presenting with Keely Kolmes, a dynamic trainer who is perhaps the foremost expert on social media for psychologists. Dr. Kolmes writes, does research, and provides consultation and training on clinical and ethical issues related to social networking and technology. Her Private Practice Social Media Policy has been internationally taught and adapted across health disciplines. She also serves on the state psychological association's ethics committee.

We will provide an introduction to digital ethics as it applies to social networking, online marketing, and other Internet activities. After reviewing research on therapist and client behavior on the Internet, we will offer guidelines for anticipating and managing problems that may arise from online activities.

We will also discuss a topic near and dear to my heart -- professional branding, and the advantages and disadvantages of websites, blogs, Twitter accounts and other types of online visibility. We plan to incorporate vignettes and encourage discussion to highlight divergent approaches to online activities in the digital age.

The event is co-sponsored by the Alameda County Psychological Association and Argosy University (the American School of Professional Psychology). It is free to members of the local chapter and Argosy students and faculty. The fee for non-members is $100 (which will be credited toward ACPA membership dues for those who join at the event) and $25 for students. Psychologists can also earn four hours of continuing education credit for this training.

The event takes places at the Argosy campus in Alameda, at 1005 Atlantic Avenue, from noon to 4:00 p.m. More information is available HERE; directions to the campus are HERE. Advance reservations are required; to reserve, email Cecelia Pena (click HERE).

Research roundup

The articles are flooding in at an alarming rate, threatening to bury me under yet another avalanche. Before I am completely submerged, let me share brief synopses of a few of the more informative ones that I have gotten around to reading.

Assessor bias in high-stakes testing: The case of children’s IQ

I’ve blogged quite a bit about bias in forensic assessment, reporting on problems with such widely used tests as the Psychopathy Checklist and the Static-99R. As I’ve reported, some of the bias can be chalked up to adversarial allegiance, or which side the evaluator is working for, whereas some may be due to personality differences among evaluators. Now, researchers are extending this research into other realms -- with alarming findings.

In a study of intelligence testing among several thousand children at 448 schools, the researchers found significant and nontrivial variations in test scoring that had nothing to do with children’s actual intelligence differences. The findings, reported in the journal Psychological Assessment, are especially curious because scoring of the test in question, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), seems relatively straightforward and objective (at least as compared to inherently subjective tests like the Psychopathy Checklist, for example).

The article is:

• Whose IQ Is It? Assessor Bias Variance in High-Stakes Psychological Assessment.  McDermott, Paul A.; Watkins, Marley W.; Rhoad, Anna M. Psychological Assessment, Published online on Nov 4 , 2013. To request a copy from the first author, click HERE.

---

Beware pseudo-precision in expert opinions

I’ve never forgotten a video I saw a long time ago, in which the filmmakers drove up to random strangers and asked for directions to a nearby landmark. Some of the good samaritans gave enthusiastic instructions that were completely wrong, while other people gave correct directions but in a more tentative fashion. The trouble is, the more confident someone appears, the more we judge them as knowing what they are talking about.  

One way we gauge a presenter’s confidence, in turn, is by their level of precision. In a new study, researchers found that participants were more likely to rely on advice given by people who provided more precise information. For example, they were more likely to trust someone who said that the Mississippi River was 3,992 miles long, rather than 4,000 miles long.

What this means in the forensic realm is that we should not make claims of false precision, when our evidence base is weak. For example, we should not claim to know that someone has a 44 percent chance of violent reoffense within three years. Such misleading claims-making lends an aura of confidence and expertise that is not warranted.

The article is:

• Show Me the Numbers: Precision as a Cue to Others' Confidence. Jerez-Fernandez, A., Angulo, A. N., & Oppenheimer, D. M. Psychological Science. Published online on 6 Dec. 2013. To request a copy from the corresponding author, click HERE.

---

Ethics and the DSM-5

Speaking of avalanches, the volume of critical response to the DSM-5 is lessening now that the tome has been on the bookshelves for eight months. Trying to keep my finger on the pulse because of my training activities on the manual’s forensic implications, I found an interesting summary of the ethical dilemmas of the latest trends in psychiatric diagnosis.

The author, Jennifer Blumenthal-Barby, is an ethics professor at Baylor College of Medicine’s Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy. In her critique, published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, she focuses on consequence-based concerns about the dramatic expansion of psychiatric diagnoses in the latest edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s influential manual. Concerns include:

• False positives, or over-diagnosis, in clinical (and I would add forensic) practice
• Risks associated with pharmacological treatments of new conditions
• Neglect of larger structural issues and reduction of individual responsibility through medicalization
• Discrediting of psychiatry through the trivialization of mental disorders
• Efforts to eradicate conditions that are valuable or even desirable

Although her discussion is fairly general, she does mention a few of the proposed diagnostic changes of forensic relevance that I’ve blogged about. These include the proposed hypersexual disorder and a proposal to eliminate the age qualifier (of 18 and above) for antisocial personality disorder, to make it consistent with all of the other personality disorders.

It’s a good, brief overview suitable for assignment to students and professionals alike.

The article is: 

• Psychiatry’s new manual (DSM-5): ethical and conceptual dimensions. Journal of Medical Ethics. Published online on 10 Dec. 2013. To request a copy, click HERE.

---

Dual relationships: Are they all bad?

We’ve all seen the memo: Dual relationships are to be avoided.

But is that always true?

Not according to ethics instructor Ofer Zur.

Multiple relationships are situations in which a mental health professional has a professional role with a client and another role with a person closely related to the client. In a new overview, Zur asserts that, not only are some multiple relationships ethical, they may be unavoidable, desirable, or even -- in some cases -- mandated.

In delineating the ethics and legality of 26 different types of multiple relationships, Zur stresses that in forensic settings, most multiple relationships should be avoided.

The article, Not All Multiple Relationships Are Created Equal: Mapping the Maze of 26 Types of Multiple Relationships, is another good teaching tool, and is freely available online at Zur’s continuing education website.

By the way, if you are in California and are looking for more ethics training, Zur and two of my former colleagues from the state psychological association’s Ethics Committee -- Michael Donner, PhD and Pamela Harmell, PhD -- are co-presenting at an interactive ethics session at the upcoming California Psychological Association convention. The convention runs April 9-13 in Monterey, and the ethics conversation -- “Ethics are not Rules: Psych in the Real World” -- is on Saturday, April 12.

RadioLab explores criminal culpability and the brain

Debate: Moral justice versus risk forecasting

After Kevin had brain surgery for his epilepsy, he developed an uncontrollable urge to download child pornography. If the surgery engendered Klüver-Bucy Syndrome, compromising his ability to control his impulses, should he be less morally culpable than another offender?

Blame is a fascinating episode of RadioLab that explores the debate over free will versus biology as destiny. Nita Farahany, professor of law and philosophy at Duke, is documenting an explosion in the use of brain science in court. But it's a slippery slope: Today, brain scanning technology only enables us to see the most obvious of physical defects, such as tumors. But one day, argues neuroscientist David Eagleman, we will be able to map the brain with sufficient focus to see that all behavior is a function of one perturbation or another.

Eagleman and guest Amy Phenix (of Static-99 fame) both think that instead of focusing on culpability, the criminal justice system should focus on risk of recidivism, as determined by statistical algorithms.

But hosts Jad and Robert express skepticism about this mechanistic approach to justice. They wonder whether a technocratic, risk-focused society is really one we want to live in.

The idea of turning legal decision-making over to a computer program is superficially alluring, promising to take prejudice and emotionality out of the equation. But the notion of scientific objectivity is illusory. Computer algorithms are nowhere near as value-neutral as their proponents claim. Implicit values are involved in choosing which factors to include in a model, humans introduce scoring bias (as I have reported previously in reference to the Static-99 and the PCL-R), and even supposedly neutral factors such as zip codes that are used in crime-forecasting software are coded markers of race and class. 

But that’s just on a technical level. On a more philosophical level, the notion that scores on various risk markers should determine an individual’s fate is not only unfair, punishing the person for acts not committed, but reflects a deeply pessimistic view of humanity. People are not just bundles of unthinking synapses. They are sentient beings, capable of change.

In addition, by placing the onus for future behavior entirely on the individual, the risk-factor-as-destiny approach conveniently removes society’s responsibility for mitigating the environmental causes of crime, and negates any hope of rehabilitation.

As discussed in an illuminating article on the Circles of Support and Accountability (or COSA) movement in Canada, former criminals face a catch-22 situation in which society refuses to reintegrate them, thereby elevating their risk of remaining alienated and ultimately reoffending. Yet when surrounded by friendship and support, former offenders are far less likely to reoffend, studies show.

The hour-long RadioLab episode  concludes with a segment on forgiveness, featuring the unlikely friendship that developed between an octogenarian and the criminal who sexually assaulted and strangled his daughter.

That provides a fitting ending. Because ultimately, as listener Molly G. from Maplewood, New Jersey, comments on the segment’s web page, justice is a moral and ethical construct. It’s not something that can, or should, be decided by scientists.

* * * * *

The episode is highly recommended. (Click HERE to listen online or download the podcast.)

Attorney-client privilege trumps child abuse reporting law, court rules

Elijah W. ruling clarifies thorny issue in California

Forensic psychologists are split as to whether we must breach confidentiality when a criminal defendant divulges child abuse or threatens physical harm to others.

On the one hand, here in California a psychologist can be criminally prosecuted under the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act (CANRA) for failure to report suspected child abuse. On the other hand, a psychologist hired as a defense consultant assumes a legal duty to maintain attorney-client confidentiality.

But a welcome appellate ruling this week at least partially resolves this vexing dilemma. A psychologist hired by a criminal defense attorney is bound by the same rules as the attorney, and must uphold the client's Constitutional right to confidentiality rather than report child abuse, the court held.

"In the absence of clear legislative guidance, we decline to read into CANRA [the Child Abuse and Neglect Reporting Act] a reporting requirement that contravenes established law on confidentiality and privilege governing defense experts and potentially jeopardizes a criminal defendant’s right to a fair trial," ruled the Second Appellate District.

The question of whether, or how, to report threatened violence (as mandated under Tarasoff and related case law) remains a bit vaguer; in some cases, warning the retaining attorney might discharge the duty to protect, but in other cases it might not. 

The appellate ruling also does not clarify the reporting requirements of psychologists retained by litigants in child custody or civil cases. However, an attorney colleague said it likely extends to any situation in which the psychologist is hired to consult on a privileged matter, such as in civil or child custody cases. The colleague's opinion was based in part on the fact that the court specifically declined to decide the issue on Constitutional grounds, basing its decision instead on California laws regarding attorney-client privilege. In contrast, under California's Evidence Code (Section 1017), there is no privilege if the expert is appointed by the court as a neutral expert. Also, if the psychologist shifts from the consultant role to become a testifying expert, once-privileged information is no longer protected.

The ruling is good news for forensic practitioners in that it reduces the ethical tension between protecting the privacy rights of the accused and protecting our own skins. Psychologists who fail to report suspected child abuse may be subject to criminal and civil penalties and are often treated very harshly by licensing boards.

The ruling puts California in the lead among U.S. states in clarifying psychologists' duties in navigating a confusing mishmash of reporting laws. Maryland is an exception to the general vagueness; that state's Attorney General issued an opinion that defense-retained psychiatrists in criminal cases are exempt from mandated reporting.

Judge had nixed child's request for independent expert

The case involved Elijah W., a 10-year-old Los Angeles boy arrested on an arson charge. When the defense team requested an expert to help prepare the fourth-grader's defense, the juvenile judge limited them to a member of the local juvenile competency to stand trial (JCST) panel. However, panel members had told Elijah's attorneys that they would report to authorities any information that Elijah revealed about suspected child abuse or neglect.

In contrast, a member of the local superior court's regular panel of psychiatrists and psychologists, Dr. Catherine Scarf, had assured the defense team she would respect attorney-client privilege and only report threats or child abuse to Elijah's counsel. The judge refused to appoint Dr. Scarf, scoffing at the defense team's concerns as "merely academic" because the judge could not recall any juvenile disclosing reportable information during a competency evaluation. 

Los Angeles created the juvenile panel in response to a recent California law mandating that juvenile competency evaluators have special training and experience in child development and juvenile forensic issues. The Los Angeles court's juvenile protocol allows a minor's defense counsel to obtain an assessment and not disclose it unless a doubt is declared as to the minor's competency. 

Elijah's attorney argued that appointment of a defense expert who would not defer to lawyer-client privilege violated Elijah's Constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel.

The appellate court agreed, noting that child abuse reporting requirements might interfere with full and open communication between a minor and his defense team.

"It is certainly plausible, for example, that a young child accused of setting fires is acting out following some form of traumatic experience, perhaps even child abuse…. Similarly, if the child is warned of the defense psychologist's intention to disclose information concerning child abuse or neglect prior to the assessment ... disclosures necessary for effective representation may be inhibited."

The appellate court also considered whether the attorney-client privilege trumps the so-called Tarasoff warning, or psychologists' duty to protect reasonably identifiable victims from threatened violence. The justices wrote favorably of Dr. Scarf's position that notifying the defense attorney would discharge the duty; in California, an attorney may reveal confidential information if necessary to prevent a criminal act likely to result in death or great bodily harm:

"We cannot evaluate in advance whether Dr. Scarf's intended notification of Elijah's attorney will insulate her from liability in any particular situation…. But her position is certainly reasonable, and her willingness to safeguard the confidentiality of Elijah's communications at the risk of personal liability should not have been discounted by the juvenile court."

Bottom line: The appellate court ordered that the juvenile court approve Dr. Scarf's appointment.

Practical implications

Forensic psychologists in California will want to carefully review this ruling for themselves, and tailor their consent forms based on the nature of the case and who the client is -- the court, the defense, or the prosecution. In preparing one's informed consent documents, consulting with an attorney knowledgeable in this tricky area is certainly not a bad idea.

Likewise, the case serves as a reminder for practitioners outside of California, who should determine the relevant statutes and case law in the jurisdictions in which they practice. In their book Evaluation for personal injury claims, Kane and Dvoskin opine that in jurisdictions in which attorneys are mandated to report child abuse, expert consultants likely must report as well. (The American Bar Association has an online chart listing state-by-state laws pertaining to attorneys' child-abuse reporting requirements.)

 * * * * *

The published case, Elijah J. versus Superior Court of Los Angeles County, can be found HERE. 

Related resources available online include: 

• Forensic evaluations and mandated reporting of child abuse, Kapoor and Zonana (2010), Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law

• Expert Opinion: Does mandatory reporting trump attorney-client opinion? Connell, Golding, Morgan and Niland (2004), American Psychology-Law Society News  

 
Hat tip: Adam Alban, PhD, JD

'Digital lynch mob' assaults expert witness in televised murder trial

Imagine you are testifying in a high-profile murder case being live-streamed over the Internet. Suddenly, an angry mob swarms all over you. More than 10,000 people sign an online petition urging a boycott of your lecture contracts. Your book gets a thousand negative hits on Amazon. You are stalked, and a photo of you dining with the trial attorney is posted on Facebook, implying unethical conduct. You even get death threats.

That is the social media-coordinated avalanche that hit domestic violence expert Alyce LaViolette, testifying for the defense in the capital murder trial of Jodi Arias. The unrelenting cyber assaults so rattled LaViolette that she suffered an anxiety attack that landed her in the emergency room.

But the ER visit may only encourage the cyber-stalkers, who revel online over her discomfiture and obvious emotional deterioration over the course of seven grueling days of court testimony.

This type of Internet mobbing, in which cyber-posses enforce social norms through public shaming, is becoming more and more commonplace. One of the most widely known examples of such Internet vigilanteism was the 2005 case of "Dog Poop Girl," a South Korean woman who gained infamy after she refused to clean up after her dog on a Seoul subway; the harassment eventually escalated to the point that she was forced to quit her university job. 

But what was LaViolette's crime?

The domestic violence counselor had the audacity to opine that Jodi Arias was a victim of domestic violence -- that she was dominated and abused (physically, emotionally and sexually) by the man she eventually killed. Such an opinion bolsters Arias's claim that she killed her ex-boyfriend in self defense.

Murder tragedies as entertainment

Unfortunately for LaViolette, her analysis runs counter to the dominant narrative in a gendered morality play produced by media conglomerate Turner Broadcasting and distributed through its cable channels HLN, CNN and In Session. In this good-versus-evil melodrama, Arias is a psychopathic female who killed a morally righteous man in a fit of jealous rage. Period. End of story. Airbrushed out are all the nuances, the shades of grey inevitably present in any such violent tragedy. 

The burgeoning infotainment industry has perfected a profit-making formula of sensationalized true-crime "reporting" that plays on viewers' emotions, whipping audiences into a frenzy of self-righteous indignation in which they clamor for guilty verdicts -- very often against female transgressors. Nancy Grace's shrill ranting over the Casey Anthony murder acquittal garnered HLN a record of almost three million viewers. More recently, HLN went after another woman, Elizabeth Johnson, suspected in the mysterious disappearance of her baby. 

The Arias case seems Heaven-sent for this voyeuristic style of entertainment, in which vulturous pundits mete out tantalizing morsels of crime "facts" to their addicted audience. Travis Alexander provides titillation from the grave via thousands of graphic emails, instant messages, texts and phone chats in which he degrades his paramour as a "whore," "slut," "corrupted carcass" and "three-hole wonder" whom he can sexually violate at will. For her part, Arias is a demonstrable liar. When her ex-boyfriend was found with a gunshot wound to the head, a slit throat, and more than two dozen stab wounds, she initially claimed innocence. After police demolished her alibi defense, she then claimed that two intruders broke into the home and killed Alexander, before finally admitting to the killing but claiming self defense.

Cast in the starring role of swashbuckling hero in this sordid drama is prosecutor Juan Martinez, a dapper man with a quick mind and an acerbic style, whose meteoric rise from the son of Mexican immigrants to a top government attorney is the stuff of American legend. Women line up outside the Maricopa County, Arizona courthouse, swooning at the sight of him as they jockey for photographs and autographs.

"This is murder trial as entertainment," Josh Mankiewicz, a correspondent for NBC's Dateline program (which ran two segments on the case), told reporter Michael Kiefer of the Arizona Republic. "This is not a trial like O.J. (Simpson's) that sheds new light on society. This is not about race or money. It's a perfect tabloid storm. It is occurring in the absence of any other tabloid storm."

Nancy Grace, "Dr. Drew" and the other pundits capitalizing on such trials foster a false sense of intimacy by calling everyone by first names. They encourage vicarious audience participation on Facebook, Twitter, online polls and other social media. But this is no value-neutral production. This is an archetypal trope that requires a guilty verdict; as one insightful media critic noted, acquittals do not produce the desired catharsis.

Public shaming run amok

In such an emotionally charged climate, anyone affiliated with the defense automatically becomes a villain. However, it is interesting to observe the disparate treatment of LaViolette as compared with a male expert witness, psychologist Richard Samuels. The prosecutor aggressively attacked them both. Playing not only to the jurors but to his sizeable out-of-court fan base, Martinez paced back and forth like a tiger smelling blood, demanding of his cornered prey that they give only "yes or no" answers to his myriad questions. Under his withering cross-examination, both witnesses came across as defensive and evasive. Both were vulnerable due to their confirmatory biases -- a failure to seek out evidence that might disconfirm their case theories. But, objectively, Samuels would seem to invite at least as much criticism as LaViolette, due to his bumbling style, his test scoring errors, and his questionable case formulation (he diagnosed posttraumatic stress disorder using a rating scale on which Arias endorsed a fictitious trauma, of witnessing Alexander's murder at the hands of imaginary intruders).

However, the public's palpable fury against LaViolette far outstrips that targeting Samuels. Consistent with the Turner Network's gendered narrative of criminal villainy, the cyber-posse is fueled by a potent combination of misogyny and homophobia: The expert witness in their crosshairs is "emasculating," "a bull dyke," "a man-hater," "fat," "buck-teethed," "a bitch."

The Internet fosters this culture of hate. Its cloak of anonymity is disinhibitory, emboldening people to spew bile with impunity. In The Cult of the Amateur, Andrew Keen warns that the deluge of anonymous online content is altering public debate, manipulating opinion, blurring the boundaries between experts and the uninformed and weakening the vitality of professional media -- newspapers, magazines, music and movies.

The proliferation of bottom-feeders on Twitter and YouTube is one thing. But it is quite another thing when cyber-bullying seeps into the courtroom, intimidating witnesses and threatening the presumption of innocence.

Can inundated jurors remain unbiased?

Legal experts worry that a virtual deluge of unreliable and biased information -- readily available at the click of the mouse or a TV remote -- is undermining jurors' neutrality. In their off hours, curious jurors in the Arias case can tune in not only to the cable TV and social media debacle, but can watch the defendant's entire videotaped police interrogation -- including excised portions -- as well as a police interview with Arias's parents, in which they speak of her mental problems. Pro- and anti-Arias websites have sprung up. And it's not just outsiders who are furiously Tweeting, texting and blogging about the case.  Witnesses are watching the trial from home and texting the prosecutor with suggestions for cross-examination. Jodi Arias herself is tweeting from the jail, through a friend. ("HLN is an acronym for Haters Love Negativity," she tweeted.)

It would be naive to suppose that the Arias jury is immune to the inflammatory rhetoric swirling around the Internet. Some of the more sarcastic questions that jurors submitted for the expert witnesses sounded scripted by Nancy Grace. For example, one juror asked psychologist Samuels whether a bad haircut could induce posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Samuels's diagnosis for Arias.

Yet trial judge Sherry Stevens -- who allowed cameras into the courtroom in the first place -- is now relying on the honor system rather than regaining control by sequestering the jury.  Complained defense attorney Kirk Nurmi: "The court asks the question of the jurors every morning, 'Have you seen anything on the media?' No one raises their hand... It is a fairy tale to assume that this jury is not hearing any of this. It is all over the news."

Kiefer, the Arizona Republic reporter who broke the story of witness LaViolette's cyber-bullying, gave examples of juror social-networking misconduct in other cases: A Michigan juror who posted a Facebook preview of her verdict ("Gonna be fun to tell the defendant they're GUILTY"); a juror in Britain who polled her social-media "friends" as to whether she should find a defendant guilty.

With more and more successful appeals of verdicts due to such Internet or social-media interference, according to a Reuters Legal survey, an appeal of any guilty verdict in the four-month Arias trial is a virtual certainty.

But any appeal will not mend the reputations of the expert witnesses called by the defense. As a retired Maricopa County Superior Court judge told Michael Kiefer, the Arizona Republic reporter, "it's the electronic version of a lynch mob."

Sree Sreenivasan, a journalism professor at Columbia University, told Kiefer he had never seen anything like the attack on LaViolette, but that it likely will become "standard operating procedure in prominent cases" -- witness intimidation taken to its logical extreme in a public culture of shaming and vilification.

If so, experts may think long and hard before about accepting referrals in high-profile cases. That, in turn, could have a chilling effect on defendants' rights to a fair trial.

Michael Kiefer's insightful Arizona Republic reports on the social media debacle are HERE, HERE and HERE. A full collection of the live-streamed trial videos is located HERE.