Expert witness and Jungian archetypes.

Jung's theories of archetype, shadow, and the personal and collective unconscious provide a postmodern framework in which to consider the role of the expert witness in judicial proceedings. Archetypal themes, motifs, and influences help to illuminate the shadow of the judicial system and projections and behaviors among the cast of the court in pursuing justice. This article speaks to archetypal influences and dialectical tensions encountered by the expert witness in this judicial drama.

Forensic experts' perceptions of expert bias.

How do expert witnesses perceive the possible biases of their fellow expert witnesses? Participants, who were attendees at a workshop at the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law were asked to rate for their biasing potential a number of situations that might affect the behavior of an opposing expert. A Rasch analysis produced a linear scale as to the perceived biasing potential of these different kinds of situations from the most biasing to the least biasing. Working for only one side in both civil and criminal cases had large scaled values and also were the first factor.

Do forensic practitioners distinguish between testifying and consulting experts? A pilot study.

Forensic mental health professionals (n=44) reviewed a series of statements that an attorney might make to a consulting or testifying expert. Each statement was rated for its degree of appropriateness to either the consulting or the testifying role. In light of increasing attention paid to this topic in the forensic practice literature, as well as long-standing distinctions recognized by the legal profession, it was originally hypothesized that participants would differentiate clearly between these roles; however, results of this pilot study indicate that forensic practitioners do not possess a consistent sense of which activities rest most comfortably within testimonial as opposed to consulting duties.

"Certainty" and expert mental health opinions in legal proceedings.

This pilot study addresses the legal and scientific ramifications of the "certainty" expressed by mental health professionals when functioning as expert witnesses in criminal and civil proceedings. The sporadic attention paid to "certainty" in the professional literature has typically taken the form of general policy oriented analyses as opposed to empirical, data-driven investigations. In the current study, 25 doctoral and master's level mental health professionals were provided with 53 different statements.