Bow ties: The simple solution to expert witness credibility

If you are a lawyer anxious over how your expert witness will perform on the witness stand, you can always instruct the expert to don a bow tie: It's just the ticket for that "nerdy nod of credibility."

That's just one of the scintillating nuggets of advice for turning a ho-hum expert into a "great" witness in the latest issue of The Jury Expert, a publication of the American Society of Trial Consultants. Other advice from Doug Carner of Forensic Protection includes instructing the expert to be confident and relaxed and not to be "the hero."

Reading the column made me thankful that the attorneys I work with have more common sense than to focus on the superficial. I would be less than thrilled to have an attorney client making wardrobe recommendations (bow tie or not) or ordering me to just relax.

I don't mean to sound cynical about trial consultants. I'm sure there is a valid place for them in helping prepare witnesses -- especially novitiates -- for trial. But in my opinion, substance is far more important than style. And that's very hard to teach in a simple advice column. So attorneys are better off choosing the right expert in the first place than scrambling to prepare their witness via last-minute wardrobe tips.

Critically, a good expert witness must have legitimate expertise in the topic at hand. Without legitimate expertise, it is hard to be calm and confident. He or she should also be thorough, taking the time to research the issues and understand the specific case facts. And, above all, the witness should convey honesty and humility.

An attorney who has to tell the witness not to play "the hero" has already made a big mistake. That narcissistic expert should have been avoided in the first place. As a colleague once remarked, it helps us to remain humble if we remember that we are just one piece of evidence, like a maggot on a dead body.

Fortunately, The Jury Expert editors had the good sense to solicit rebuttals from other trial consultants, who took issue with Carner's column.

Forensic psychologist Stanley Brodsky, a widely published authority on trial consultation, called Carner's wardrobe advice "demeaning." Experts don't need to be told to dress up for court. And although one or two exceptions come to mind, most of us won't feel more comfortable in a bow tie.

Brodsky also objected to Carner's advice that experts should just "stick to the facts." What distinguishes expert testimony from the testimony of lay or fact witnesses, he pointed out, is that experts are supposed to present not just facts but -- that's right -- expert opinions.

In another rebuttal, trial consultant Elaine Lewis said Carner only stated the obvious, without giving any real insights on how to achieve better results. "For example, we are told an expert 'should remain relaxed' but there is no suggestion on how to accomplish this," she noted.

Ellen Finlay, who brings the perspective of a former trial attorney to her trial consultant practice, said much of what looks like poor witness preparation stems from inadequate law school training in how to craft a compelling direct examination. A well-crafted direct examination provides a road map for jurors and witnesses and is the single most effective way to "communicate your story to both the jury and your own witnesses," she coaches.

If I was in the business of advising attorneys on preparing expert witnesses for trial, I would tell them not to scrimp on time. The biggest mistake I see attorneys making is to throw their cases together at the last minute. Attorneys need to fully explain to their experts their theory of the case, their voir dire and direct examination approach, and what to anticipate from cross-examination.

If the expert is left hanging in the wind, the case will suffer, bow tie or not.

SVP risk tools show 'disappointing' reliability in real-world use

Rater agreement on three instruments commonly used  to assess sex offenders' risk of recidivism is much lower in practice than reported in the tools' manuals, according to a new study out of Florida.

Faring most poorly was the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R). Correlations of scores between two evaluators hired by the same agency were in the low range. On average, psychologists differed by five points on the instrument, which has a score range of of zero to 40. In one case, two evaluators were apart by a whopping 24 points!

Agreement among evaluators was only moderate on the Static-99 and the MnSOST-R, two actuarial risk assessment instruments for which scoring is relatively more straightforward.

The study, published in the respected journal Psychological Assessment, was a collaboration between scholars from the Department of Mental Health Law and Policy at the University of South Florida and researchers with the Florida Department of Children and Families. It utilized archived records culled from the almost 35,000 individuals screened for possible Sexually Violent Predators (SVP) civil commitment in Florida between 1999 and 2009. The researchers located 315 cases in which the same individual was evaluated by separate clinicians who each administered both the PCL-R and at least one of the two actuarial measures within a short enough time frame to enable direct scoring comparisons.

It would be a mistake to lean too heavily on the results of a single isolated study. But the present study adds to a burgeoning body from several groups of independent researchers, all pointing to troubling problems with the accuracy of instruments designed to forecast risk of recidivism among sex offenders.

Related study: Psychopathy and sexual deviance not predictive

Collectively, the research has been especially critical of the ability of the highly prejudicial construct of psychopathy to add meaningfully to risk prediction in this high-stakes arena. Indeed, just this week another study has come out indicating that neither psychopathy scores nor sexual deviance measures improve on the accuracy provided by an actuarial instrument alone.

An especially interesting finding of that Canadian study is that reoffense rates were still below 12 percent over a 6-year followup period for even the most high-risk offenders -- those with high risk ratings on the Static-99R plus high levels of psychopathy and sexual deviance (as measured by phallometric testing). This makes it inappropriate to inflate risk estimates over and above those derived from Static-99R scores alone, the authors caution.

Item-level analysis finds varying rates of accuracy

A unique contribution of the Florida study is its analysis of the relative accuracy of every single item in each of the three instruments studied. Handy tables allow a forensic practitioner to see which items have the poorest reliability, meaning they should be viewed skeptically by forensic decision-makers.

For example, take the MnSOST-R, a now-defunct instrument with a score range of –14 to 31 points. The total gap between evaluators was as wide as 19 points; the items with the greatest variability in scoring were those pertaining to offenders' functioning during incarceration, such as participation in treatment.

Meanwhile, the weak performance of the Psychopathy Checklist owes much to the items on its so-called “Factor 1,” which attempt to measure the personality style of the psychopath. As I've discussed before, rating someone as “glib,” “callous” or “shallow” is a highly subjective enterprise that opens the door to a veritable avalanche of personal bias.

Piggy-backing off a recommendation by John Edens and colleagues, the Florida team suggests that the prejudicial deployment of the Psychopathy Checklist may be superfluous, in that scores on Factor 2 alone (the items reflecting a chronic criminal lifestyle) are more predictive of future violence or sexual recidivism.

Next up, we need to identify the causes of the poor interrater reliability for forensic risk prediction instruments in real-world settings. Is it due to inadequate training, differing clinical skills, variable access to collateral data, intentional or unintentional bias on the part of examiners, adversarial allegiance effects (not a factor in the present study, since both evaluators were appointed by the same agency), or some combination?

In the meantime, the fact that two evaluators working on the same side cannot reliably arrive at the same risk rating for any particular individual should certainly raise our skepticism about the validity of risk prediction based on these instruments.

The studies are:

Reliability of Risk Assessment Measures Used in Sexually Violent Predator Proceedings. Cailey Miller, Eva Kimonis, Randy Otto, Suzonne Kline and Adam Wasserman. Psychological Assessment. Published online 7 May 2012. Advance online publication. Click HERE to contact the authors.

Does Consideration of Psychopathy and Sexual Deviance Add to the Predictive Validity of the Static-99R? Jan Looman, Nicola A. C. Morphett and Jeff Abracen. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. Published online 28 May 2012. Click HERE to contact the authors.

Inter-rater reliability of the PCL-R total and factor scores among psychopathic sex offenders: Are personality features more prone to disagreement than behavioral features? John Edens, Marcus Boccaccini and D. W. Johnson. 2010. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 28 (1), 106–119. 

Related blog posts: 

• Psychopathy: A Rorschach test for psychologists?
• Study: Psychopathy score fails to predict sexual recidivism   
• NPR series on psychopathy in court

Civil capacity assessment comes of age

What do these three situations have in common?

• A young adult with chronic schizophrenia refuses medication because she believes she is being poisoned 

• A middle-aged adult struggles to pay his bills after a traumatic brain injury from a motorcycle accident 

• An older adult with dementia revises a will to favor one stepchild over another

All are situations in which a forensic practitioner may be called upon to render an opinion on the individual's capacity, whether to make medical decisions, handle finances, or execute a will. As the population ages and family structures become increasingly complex, the demand for such civil capacity assessments is growing exponentially.

So it is only fitting that the inaugural text in the National Academy of Neuropsychology’s new series on evidence-based practice focuses on civil capacities. The book brings together theoretical developments, research findings and practice recommendations in this complex and expanding area.

Volume editor George Demakis, a psychology professor at the University of North Carolina with considerable clinical experience conducting civil capacity evaluations, has brought together an impressive array of experts. Together, they discuss the research and practice in a range of civil capacities, including financial, healthcare decision-making, testamentary (executing a will), driving, personal care and guardianship.

The field's evolution is clearly visible in this book's chapters. Only 26 years ago, Tom Grisso issued his paradigm-shifting call for the assessment of "functional capacities." Here, rather than focusing on diagnostic labels or one-size-fits-all checklists of ability, chapter authors urge practitioners to carefully explore the individual's real-life functioning, including through collateral reports and even direct evidence of performance (for example, by observing a subject's driving).

A central goal of the book is to provide practical guidance. Each chapter contains an illustrative case example and discusses the range of capacity instruments available in that particular niche. Later chapters focus on the nuts and bolts of data collection, report writing, and testifying. There's even a chapter from the perspective of "the legal consumer," in which two North Carolina court officers tell us what they would like to see in a civil capacity assessment report. Although it's rather elementary stuff for the seasoned forensic practitioner, the chapter makes for a useful teaching tool for students and other novitiates.

In a glowing review for PsyCritiques, Jennifer Moye calls the text "a must read" that is "certain to advance the field." Her one substantive critique is that it gave short shrift to how values and individual differences (including multicultural and educational influences) play into expert judgments of capacity. This is an important issue, considering the liberties that can be lost when people are declared incompetent to make their own medical decisions or to live independently in the community.

For a more thorough discussion of the issue of social status and capacity assessment, from the perspective of medical treatment, I recommend an essay by Susan Stefan in a special 1996 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law on the MacArthur Treatment Competence Research.

I was also a bit disappointed to see that last year's book by colleagues Adam Alban and Eric Mart on testamentary capacity didn't get even a nod. The book, The Practical Assessment of Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence in the Elderly, is an excellent practitioner guide, which even includes a CD-ROM of assessment tools in this area.

These minor quibbles aside, Civil Capacities is a major advance that is sure to become an essential text for those working in this area, including neuropsychologists, forensic psychologists, attorneys and judges.

My Amazon review of Civil Capacities in Clinical Neuropsychology: Research Findings and Practical Applications is HERE. If you find it useful, please click on "YES," this review was helpful.

Jail confidentiality, Part II: Open season on insanity consultants

Do insanity consultations fall under the attorney-client privilege? 
Not in DeKalb County, Georgia

POSTSCRIPT: In 2015, the Georgia Supreme Court overturned Henry Neuman's murder conviction based on the trial court's harmful error of violating attorney-client privilege by forcing the defense consultants to turn over their records to prosecutors. My blog post on this ruling is HERE.  

In civil court, expert consultants may be kept secret under attorney-client confidentiality rules. Even with testifying experts, an amendment to the Federal Rules of Evidence allows civil attorneys to avoid handing over the experts' reports until they are in their final form.

Is the situation similar in criminal court? Criminal attorneys often assert that the work product of an expert who is retained only as a consultant -- not as an expert witness -- can be kept confidential under the attorney-client privilege doctrine. But consider this scenario:

An attorney wants to know whether insanity might be a viable defense in a murder case. He decides to retain a psychologist as a consultant. The psychologist agrees to meet with the defendant and give the attorney an initial assessment.

Being an ethical practitioner, the psychologist obtains informed consent from the defendant. He explains that since he is just a consultant and won’t be testifying as an expert in the case, the information that he collects will only be shared with the attorney.

But he is wrong. The next thing he knows, he has been slapped with a subpoena ordering him to bring his notes and test data to court and be prepared to be questioned by the district attorney about his findings. If he refused to cooperate, the prosecutor threatens to search his office and seize the records; a search warrant is already in hand.

Peter Thomas. Photo credit: Chris 
North, Reporter Newspapers

This was the rude introduction to forensic psychology that greeted Peter Thomas of Georgia, a novice to criminal work and court proceedings. He was yanked into the middle of the headline-grabbing case of Hemy Neuman, a high-level General Electric manager who had ambushed and shot to death a subordinate's husband, entrepreneur Russell "Rusty" Sneiderman, outside a preschool in a wealthy suburb of Atlanta, Georgia.

The prosecutor in the Neuman case learned of Thomas's involvement through an old trick -- underhanded but effective -- of monitoring the jail's visitor logs.  

Neuman's attorneys vigorously objected to the subpoena and the legality of the pretrial discovery hearing. Allowing prosecutors to interview Thomas would have a "chilling effect" on defense attorneys' ability to use experts, lest they do their clients "more harm than good," attorney Robert Rubin argued to the court. 

"Mr. Neuman was told, at the beginning of his meeting with Peter Thomas, that his disclosures during the course of that interview would be disclosed only to his legal team," Rubin and co-counsel Douglas Peters wrote in a legal motion objecting to the disclosure. "Mr. Neuman was NOT given the standard warnings usually given during a court ordered evaluation that by cooperating in the evaluation he was waiving his Fifth Amendment privilege. Mr. Neuman did not knowingly waive any privilege, including Fifth Amendment or attorney-client."

But DeKalb Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams was unmoved. He ordered Thomas and, later, a second psychologist, to hand over their evaluation notes forthwith. He said he would first view the materials to protect any information that might fall under the protection of the attorney-client privilege.

Case law murky

The U.S. Supreme Court has never clarified whether the prosecution can discover and use evidence generated by non-witness defense psychiatric experts when criminal defendants raise the insanity defense, leaving lower courts divided on the issue, according to an overview in the Fordham Law Review.

The Third Circuit is an example of an appellate court that has ruled that attorney-client privilege applies in this situation. In its 1975 ruling in U.S. v. Alvarez, it held that "effective assistance of counsel with respect to the preparation of an insanity defense demands recognition that a defendant be as free to communicate with a psychiatric expert as with the attorney he is assisting." In that case, a psychiatric consultant rendered an unfavorable opinion regarding the viability of an insanity defense for a defendant facing trial for kidnapping. The defense went ahead with an insanity defense anyway, without calling the expert to testify. Knowing of the initial expert's opinion, the government subpoenaed him and, over defense objection, the trial court compelled him to testify. The Third Circuit overturned the conviction.

Other courts, however, "have held that merely by asserting the insanity defense, criminal defendants waive all claims of privilege with respect to any prior psychiatric evaluations," reports Elizabeth Maringer in the law review. A prime example was the 1976 case of Edney v. Smith, involving a man facing trial for kidnapping and murdering his ex-girlfriend's 8-year-old daughter. Edney pleaded insanity and called a psychiatrist who testified in support of this plea. The court then allowed the prosecution to call, in rebuttal, the original psychiatrist who had examined Edney for trial preparation purposes and who did not believe that Edney was mentally ill. The New York Court of Appeals upheld Edney’s conviction, ruling that pursuing an insanity defense automatically waives the attorney-client privilege.

The threat of prosecutorial discovery puts defense attorneys in a Catch-22 situation as they weigh options in cases in which mental illness is a potential issue. On the one hand, as Maringer notes, counsel “risk creating witnesses for the prosecution” when they investigate a mental health defense, especially if they use court-appointed experts. On the other hand, they risk violating their client's rights if they do not thoroughly investigate this line of defense.

"The obvious chilling effect upon defense attorneys' willingness to investigate and pursue the insanity defense for their clients conflicts with the policies underlying the Sixth Amendment," Maringer states. "In addition, risk of disclosure diminishes defendants' willingness to cooperate with counsel and psychiatric experts."

'Celebrity angels and demons made me do it'

Hemy Neuman

Neuman's insanity defense was ridiculed in the press. The love-struck defendant claimed that he had heard the voice of a demon who sounded like Barry White and seen an angel who looked like Olivia Newton-John, who ordered him to kill the husband of his love interest.

The defense called at least three mental health experts. Psychologist Adriana Flores testified that in her expert opinion Neuman was suffering from erotomanic delusions and was insane at the time of the killing. Neuman told her he had been visited by a "she-demon" who told him the Sneidermans' children were his.

"He believed he was the father of the children, they were his children and were in danger," Flores testified. "It was his duty to rescue them, to protect them by killing Rusty [Sneiderman], then he could be with his children. 

Another defense expert, psychiatrist Julie Rand Dorney, testified that Neuman showed signs of "paranoia, depression, social isolation, confusion and magical thinking, which could mean psychosis."

The prosecution, meanwhile, painted Neuman as a calculating killer who planned Sneiderman's shooting for months, going to gun shows, taking a gun safety course, going to target practice, renting a car for the shooting and wearing a disguise, according to ABC News coverage.

Psychiatrist Pamela Crawford, called by the government, said she believed Neuman was faking his symptoms. "His discussion of [the demons] was inconsistent," she testified. "At one point he says, 'I know they are not real,' then later says, 'I just want the demons to go away.' He's not even consistent in the same interview."

"The defendant is serving up an insanity sandwich and he's been serving it up since 2010 and he wants you to eat it," District Attorney Robert James told the jury.

Not too surprisingly, the jury rejected Neuman's insanity bid. Neuman was found guilty but mentally ill and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Appeal may clarify law - at least in Georgia

The judge's decision to turn over Thomas's assessment data to the prosecution will likely figure prominently in Neuman's appeal.

Neuman’s attorney, Robert Rubin, said the prosecution's pretrial subpoena ploy forced the defense to change strategies, and to call Thomas as a witness in order to prevent him from becoming a prosecution witness. Thomas, who had never before testified in court, conceded under cross-examination that he did not test for malingering, and that Neuman may have been faking insanity.

The case should serve as a cautionary one for pretrial consultants. Unless and until this murky area of the law gets cleared up, it is prudent when conducting an insanity evaluation -- even if you are just a consultant and not expected to testify -- to let the defendant know that the information you are collecting may ultimately be discoverable.

After all, you never know who is looking over your shoulder when you sign your name on the jail log. It could be a prosecutor with a subpoena in one hand and a search warrant in the other.

The law review article, available online, is: "Witness for the prosecution: Prosecutorial discovery of information generated by non- testifying defense psychiatric experts" by Elizabeth F. Maringer, Fordham Law Review 62 (3), 1993.

Confidentiality and jail forensic evaluations (Part I of II)

Prosecutor secretly records forensic psychology evaluation 

Alameda County Courthouse, Oakland

The other day, I was evaluating an inmate at the county jail, when we both heard a series of faint clicking sounds. He immediately jumped to the conclusion that "they" were eavesdropping on us.

Nonsense, I thought.They were probably just opening the door of an adjacent visiting room.

But in the nearby county of Alameda (Oakland, California), the legal community is abuzz over an incident in which jail deputies actually did eavesdrop on at least one confidential interview between a forensic psychologist and a criminal defendant.

What's most astonishing is that the prosecutor who requested the surveillance, an experienced trial attorney, did not seem to realize she was doing anything wrong. Several days after ordering the tape-recording, Deputy District Attorney Danielle London presented it to the defendant's attorney, apparently planning to use it as leverage in the case.

The expert who was illegally recorded was conducting an evaluation aimed at determining whether "intimate partner syndrome" (synonymous with battered women’s syndrome) was relevant to explaining why defendant Marissa Manning stabbed her husband to death during a fight.

Santa Rita Jail deputies routinely eavesdrop on conversations between inmates and their friends and families, and audiotapes of such conversations can be used as evidence against defendants. But attorney-client conversations are supposed to be off limits. The district attorney's nonchalance about such a basic violation of attorney-client privilege has observers wondering whether this is a one-off situation or part of a larger pattern.

"This incident has placed the Public Defender's Office on red alert," Diane Bellas, the county's chief public defender, told a newspaper reporter. "It is a felony to record the conversation between an inmate and her attorney or others who are presumed to maintain confidentiality on the inmate's behalf.”

"A prosecutor's intrusion into a defense preparation in this way severely undermines the right to counsel and the ability of a defendant to investigate a case" agreed Charles Weisselberg, a professor of law at the nearby Boalt Law School of the University of California in Berkeley. "It's pretty egregious and striking."

London has been suspended pending an internal investigation.

Coming up in Part II: Confidentiality and jail sign-in logs

Research: Romney's anti-gay assault fits typical pattern

Romney then

Outed for physical and verbal abuse of gay classmates during high school, U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney is trivializing the incidents as "pranks" and "dumb things," and claiming not to know the boy he assaulted was gay.

To me, his response came as no surprise. This is precisely what most gay-bashers think and say, according to my groundbreaking research on the motivations of perpetrators.

In the first empirical research into prevalence rates of and motivations for antigay harassment and violence by noncriminal young adults, I found antigay behaviors like Romney's to be alarmingly commonplace. One in 10 young adults in the politically liberal San Francisco Bay Area admitted to physical violence or threats against presumed homosexuals, and another 24 percent acknowledged name-calling. The percentages were even higher among young men. The frequency of self-acknowledged antigay behaviors among a general population sample was consistent with victim studies in which large proportions of lesbians and gay men report sexuality-related victimization.

Like Mitt Romney, most gay-bashers with whom I conducted followup interviews insisted that they were not motivated by hatred of homosexuals. This despite the fact that many of their assaults fell within legal definitions of a hate crime. Many, like Romney, were instead acting as self-appointed enforcers of gender norms for male and female behavior.

Washington Post reporter Jason Horowitz was able to track down five former classmates of Romney’s who gave similar accounts of how Romney led a "vicious" assault against a closeted gay classmate at his prestigious boarding school in Michigan. The victim, John Lauber, was "perpetually teased for his nonconformity and presumed homosexuality." Romney reportedly became incensed about Lauber’s bleached-blond hair that draped over one eye:

"He can’t look like that. That’s wrong. Just look at him!" an incensed Romney told Matthew Friedemann, his close friend in the Stevens Hall dorm, according to Friedemann's recollection. Mitt, the teenage son of Michigan Gov. George Romney, kept complaining about Lauber's look, Friedemann recalled.

A few days later, Friedemann entered Stevens Hall off the school's collegiate quad to find Romney marching out of his own room ahead of a prep school posse shouting about their plan to cut Lauber's hair. Friedemann followed them to a nearby room where they came upon Lauber, tackled him and pinned him to the ground. As Lauber, his eyes filling with tears, screamed for help, Romney repeatedly clipped his hair with a pair of scissors.

"It happened very quickly, and to this day it troubles me," said [Thomas] Buford, the school's wrestling champion, who said he joined Romney in restraining Lauber. Buford subsequently apologized to Lauber, who was "terrified," he said. (Buford later became a prosecutor. )

Soon after the incident, Lauber disappeared, expelled for smoking a cigarette. He died of liver cancer in 2004.

In defending himself, Romney told Fox News that he "had no idea what that individual's sexual orientation might be."

But that misses the point.

Romney now

In my in-depth interviews with antigay assailants, all insisted that their assaults were not driven by animus toward homosexuals. Rather than punishment of homosexuality per se, their assaults on presumed homosexuals were aimed at punishing those who violated mandatory sex role norms. Boys who do not conform to expected gender norms are labeled very early on as "sissies" or "fags" and subjected to merciless bullying. This peer policing is a very effective way of enforcing hierarchical gender relations. 

By wearing his hair in a feminine manner, Lauber had violated the antifemininity norm that is part of the bedrock of traditional masculinity, which apparently dominated at the elite Cranbrook School.

Romney's verbal denigration of another former classmate, also a closeted homosexual, fits this same pattern. When Gary Hummel tried to speak up in English class, Romney shouted “atta girl!” at him, Hummel told the Post.

So, Romney's assaultive and bullying conduct was not so much to punish Lauber and Hummel for being gay as for being different, for having the audacity not to conform to his chest-thumping notions of manliness. This contempt for insufficiently masculine men is a core feature of our culture, helping to explain Romney's self-righteousness and his facile dismissal of his harmful conduct as innocent hijinks.