1
Module 1: Written Assignment - Completing a Forensic Assessment
Lindsey M. K. Wilson
Forensic Psychology, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology
FO619: Treatment of The Adult Offender
Dr. Isabelle Dousarkissian
October 31, 2021
2
Module 1: Written Assignment - Completing a Forensic Assessment
A forensic assessment is conducted by a forensic psychologist in order “to inform some
aspect of criminal adjudication or civil litigation” (Heilbrun et al., 2003, p. 70). The evaluator
acts as a “truth seeker” by taking an “objective or quasi-objective stance” on the particular
event/case relevant to the court (Heilbrun et al., 2003, p. 70). The function of the forensic
psychologist is to answer the psycholegal question of criminal responsibility raised by the court
(Parker, 2009).
Client, Disclosure, and Non-Confidentiality
The expert’s primary duty is to the client, or the court (in this case). Informed consent is
not legally required for court-ordered forensic assessments; however, APA ethical guidelines
require an informed disclosure process, or notification, which informs the individual of the
nature and purpose of the evaluation (Kalmbach & Lyons, 2006). Important topics discussed in
the disclosure include: the psycholegal question to be addressed in the evaluation, the different
types of information that will be obtained and how it will be acquired, the possibility that the
evaluator may testify on information collected, the identification of the parties that will have
access to the assessment, and the non-confidential nature of the assessment (Lane, 2016). With
regard to confidentiality, the individual must be told that “no privilege exists, and that copies of
the final report will be given to the court” as well as their defense attorney and the prosecution
(Kalmbach & Lyons, 2006, p. 267). The dissemination of the report does not include the
individual being evaluated” (Kalmbach & Lyons, 2006).
Sources of Information
The evaluator starts by learning the facts of the case and reviews all relevant sources of
information (Knoll & Resnick, 2007). The sources for each case vary depending on the
3
psycholegal question raised by the court (Heilbrun et al., 2003). Sources that may include
information [involving case-relevant periods] are of particular importance (Knoll & Resnick,
2007). Sources of information may include

“police reports, narratives, interrogations;

audio or videotape of defendant immediately before, during, or after offense;

victim and witness statements;

other relevant observations of the defendant made at the time of the offense;

crime scene photos and/or visual inspection of crime scene;

autopsy report and photos;

defendant’s medical records;

defendant’s psychiatric records;

other expert evaluations, testimony;

school records;

military records;

work records;

financial records;

correctional records;

personal communications (journals, letters, emails, etc.);

[and] collateral interviews if necessary” (Knoll & Resnick, 2007, p. 5).
The sources reviewed inform the way in which the evaluator may approach the forensic
interview (Knoll & Resnick, 2007). The evaluator will interview the defendant about numerous
topics including
•
“social history;
4
•
educational history;
•
occupational history;
•
legal history;
•
medical history;
•
family psychiatric history;
•
personal psychiatric history;
•
substance use history;
•
current medications;
•
prior relationship of defendant to victim;
•
[and the] defendant’s account of offense” (Knoll & Resnick, 2007, p. 10).
Court-Appointed Expert Testimony
Forensic expert witnesses are subject to challenge by Federal Rules of Evidence and by
cross-examination (United States Supreme Court, 2020). Court-appointed expert witness
testimony is permitted under Federal Rule 706 (United States Supreme Court, 2020). In the case
that the evaluation is court-ordered, the court is required to outline the duties of the expert and
provide provisions for the scope of the assessment (United States Supreme Court, 2020).
Federal Rule 702: Testimony by Expert Witness
The evaluator as an expert “assist[s] the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to
determine a fact in issue [and is permitted to] testify thereto in the form of an opinion or
otherwise” (Knoll & Resnick, 2007, p.4). Under Federal Rule 702 and in Daubert Jurisdictions,
it must be determined whether the forensic psychologist has the proper ‘‘knowledge, skill,
experience, training or education.’’ (United States Supreme Court, 2020). Forensic psychologists
have an “obligation to present to the court, regarding the specific matters to which they will
5
testify, the boundaries of their competence, the factual bases (knowledge, skill, experience,
training, and education) for their qualification as an expert, and the relevance of those factual
bases to their qualification as an expert on the specific matters at issue” (Golding et al., 1991, p.
658). Ultimately, the court rules whether the forensic psychologist meets the required
qualifications applicable and determines if the testimony is admissible (Packer, 2009).
Federal Rule 703: Bases of an Expert’s Opinion Testimony
“The forensic [assessment] involves an evaluative style that includes reliance on
collateral and corroborated information rather than mere assertions by the examinee” (Kalmbach
& Lyons, 2006, p. 261). Because there is cross-informant and collateral data used in a forensic
assessment the evaluation and testimony may be challenged on the grounds of hearsay. However,
Federal Rule 703 allows experts to base their opinions on information that is inadmissible at trial
(Heilbrun et al., 2003). For example, the forensic interviewer may draw from a defendant’s
personal journals or letters to form their expert opinion. Yet, in court, these documents may not
be a part of discovery or may be seen as prejudicial thus ruled inadmissible. Under Federal Rule
703, since psychologists reasonably rely on these kinds of facts or data to form an opinion on the
individual, the sources do not have to be independently admissible for their opinion to be
admitted (United States Supreme Court, 2020). So long as the expert witness can provide
sufficient evidence to support the relevance to include the information in the assessment, it is
admissible in their testimony (Heilbrun et al., 2003).
“Some states have rules similar to Federal Rule 703”, however, each states evidentiary
rules vary (Heilbrun et al., 2003, p. 76). Some states require that the expert opinion be based on
“sources of information that would be independently admissible” (Heilbrun et al., 2003, p.76). In
6
these cases, it is possible the expert testimony and the forensic assessment to be ruled
inadmissible (Heilbrun et al., 2003).
Federal Rule 704: Opinion on an Ultimate Issue
The forensic psychologist should not explicitly offer a legal conclusion for criminal
responsibility because the ultimate issue is left up to the trier of fact (Cappellino, 2021). Further,
Federal Rule 704(b) prevents expert witnesses from testifying to the ultimate issue, “whether a
defendant did or did not have a mental state or condition comprising either an element of the
crime or an element of the defense” (Buchanan, 2006). “However, the experts may provide
observational or diagnostic opinions as to the defendant’s behavior, which can directly inform
the fact finder of the ultimate issue” (Legal Information Institute. n.d.).
Federal Rule 705: Disclosing the Facts or Data Underlying and Expert’s Opinion
The opposing counsel’s goal in cross-examination is to demonstrate that the forensic
evaluator is not actually an expert and their use, understanding of the assessment, and analysis of
the findings are insufficient and inadmissible (Heilbrun et al., 2003). Under Federal Rule 705,
during cross-examination, the forensic evaluator must articulate the theory that forms the context
and framework for the instruments used in the evaluation, the accuracy of the results and how
they can be applied in the case at hand (Heilbrun et al., 2003). It is expected that the testimony
clearly conveys the relationship between the data and issues relevant to the defendant’s criminal
responsibility (Packer, 2009, p. 36).
7
References
Buchanan, A. (2006). Psychiatric evidence on the ultimate issue. Journal of the American
Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34(1), 14-21.
Cappellino, A. (2021, April 30). How psychology expert witnesses can impact criminal & civil
cases. Expert Institute. https://www.expertinstitute.com/resources/insights/howpsychology-expert-witnesses- can-benefit-criminal-civil-cases/
Golding, S. L., Grisso, T., Shapiro, D., & Weissman, H. (1991). Specialty guidelines for forensic
psychologists’. Law and Human Behavior, 15(6), 655-665.
Heilbrun, K., Warren, J., & Picarello, K. (2003). Third party information in forensic assessment.
In A. M. Goldstein (Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology, (pp. 69–86).
John Wiley & Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei1105
Kalmbach, K. C., & Lyons, P. M. (2006). Ethical issues in conducting forensic
evaluations. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice, 2(3), 261-290.
Knoll, J. & Resnick, P. (2007). Insanity defense evaluations: Toward a model for evidence-based
practice. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 8, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1093/brieftreatment/mhm024
Lane, D. K. (2016, May 4). Disclosures for forensic evaluations: Not an assessment for purposes
of treatment. The National Psychologist. https://nationalpsychologist.com/2016/05/
disclosures-for-forensic-evaluations-not-an-assessment-for-purposes-oftreatment/103255.html
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Rules 702-706. Federal rules of evidence. Legal
Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre
Packer, I. K. (2009). Evaluation of criminal responsibility. Oxford University Press.
8
United States Supreme Court. (2020). Federal Rules of Evidence 2021. American Legal
Publishing Corporation.