Ultimate issue

Abstract: This study explored the congruency between child custody evaluations and the needs of the legal profession. One hundred twenty-one judges and attorneys were surveyed. In general, both groups expressed similar attitudes and beliefs. Findings indicated that court-ordered evaluations were most useful, and objectivity was paramount. Judges and attorneys also expressed a need for improvements in child custody reports, particularly greater child focus, pro- vision of custody and visitation recommendations. discussion of legal criteria, and timely completion ofevaluations. It is hoped that the findings will inform professional practice and help evaluators better serve the needs of the family court. How well do mental health professionals serve the family court? This is a fundamental issue that requires close examination due to the increased reliance on mental health expertise in the family court system (Mason & Quirk, 1997). Because mental health professionals have different training, expertise, and roles than legal professionals, it is imperative to exam- ine the congruency between the needs and desires of the legal profession and what mental health professionals are seen as providing in child custody evaluations and reports. Further- more, within the legal profession, judges and attorneys may have varying views of such eval- uations because of their particularroles in the court system. Consequently, it is also critical to explore any possible discrepant views among these legal groups. Through analyzing the beliefs and attitudes of judges and attorneys about child custody evaluations and reports, it is hoped that mental health professionals will better understand and serve the family court. Past research has focused on the practices and procedures used by child custody evalua- tors (Ackerman & Ackerman, 1996; Bow & Quinnell, 2001; Keilin & Bloom, 1986; LaFortune & Carpenter, 1998). Bow and Quinnell(2001) studied 198 psychologists from 38 states and found improvements in the quality of child custody evaluations conducted by psy- chologists over the past 15 years. Overall, the evaluations were more comprehensive and closely followed custody evaluation guidelines established by the American Psychological Association (1994). Nevertheless, the extent to which these practices and procedures are congruent with the needs of the legal profession is debatable. Furthermore, among mental health professionals, there is ongoing argument over the role of the evaluator, the appropriateness of addressing the ultimate issue, and the sufficiency of research supporting child custody determination (Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997; O'Donohue & Bradley, 1999; Weisz, 1999). All of these issues play a critical role in the evaluation process and directly impact the court's perception of mental health professionals.

Abstract: The testimony of mental health experts is often important evidence considered by criminal courts in determining issues arising throughout the adjudicative process, but not all evidence provided by experts is equally valid or probative. Using a hypothetical insanity defense case, we compared the preferences of Virginia judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys for different types of forensic mental health evidence, including descriptive and diagnostic testimony, testimony about relevant research and actuarial data, and ultimate issue testimony. In addition, we determined their preferences for different types of mental health professionals. Four key findings emerged. First, many participants preferred that psychiatrists, rather than psychologists or other mental health professionals, conduct forensic evaluations for the court. Second, while participants were interested in most types of mental health evidence, they were primarily interested in clinical diagnosis, followed by an analysis of whether the condition met the relevant legal threshold, and an ultimate opinion on the legal issue. Third, participants were less interested in research or actuarial evidence. Fourth, participants differed in their evidentiary preferences in ways that reflect their respective roles in the adversary system. The findings suggest that while courts and attorneys find traditional clinical testimony useful in criminal cases, they also favor ultimate issue testimony, and view research data or statistically based information as less helpful. Mental health professionals should consider how to educate the courts and bar about the dangers inherent in over-reliance on the conclusory legal testimony of mental health experts, the utility of scientific data as such information becomes more routinely introduced as evidence at trial, and the expertise available from various mental health professionals.

Abstract: Objective: This paper provides an overview of the insanity defence. An historical context is offered and each element of the M'Naghten Rules is discussed, highlighting differing interpretations within various jurisdictions. Discussion is offered on the role of expert evidence in addressing the ‘ultimate issue’ before the courts. Significant case law in relation to the insanity defence is highlighted.Conclusions: Psychiatrists have an important role to play in addressing issues central to the M'Naghten Rules and making these accessible and comprehensible to court and jurors in particular. Insanity is a legal construct designed to determine the extent to which a person may be deemed criminally responsible for a criminal act and is often difficult to reconcile within medical and public paradigms of mental illness and justice. Principles are offered to guide psychiatrists who are called to give evidence in cases where the mental illness defence has been raised.

Abstract: This research focuses on one of the major changes wrought by the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: the exclusion of expert mental health testimony on the “ultimate issue,” that is, testimony specifically addressing the expert's opinion that the defendant is sane or insane Subjects in this research were presented with 1 of 10 variants of an insanity case in which experts testified for the defense, prosecution, both, or neither The testimony was at one of three levels: diagnostic only, penultimate issue, or ultimate issue Results showed that level of testimony had no effect on the verdict pattern There was evidence to suggest that this effect may occur because jurors infer, and/or mistakenly recall, higher levels of expert testimony than was actually presented to them In addition, general and specific constructs (Finkel & Handel, 1989) that predict verdict yieldedR2 values from 500 to 668 and were not significantly affected by the level of expert testimony Implications of these findings are discussed