PSY 626 1-3 PSY 622 Case Report: Case Scenario 6
Legal Contract and Affidavit
As an expert witness, and according to the Federal Rules of Evidence 702, I meet both the legal and practical requirements for the provision of the witness services (Mangraviti, 2019). I have the required knowledge and experience, which will assist a lot towards comprehending evidence provided or the resolution of any issue that may arise. I also have a license in this state that makes me a qualified expert witness candidate. On the practical aspect of this, I can meet deadlines. I do not have a previous record of malpractice; for instance, license revocations, my schedule as I might say, is quite flexible, which would allow me to be always present on every deposition and trial. But perhaps what I can say is a quite essential quality that I possess is communication skills as I know how important a feature this is for an expert witness to possess. My investigative and research prowess also makes me fit for the task at hand.
Apart from me, I would also use the services of two other parties in my duties as an expert witness. The first party’s role will be that of a private investigator. This individual will be responsible for ‘digging’ into the client’s life to determine the factors like family background, opinions of people close to him of whether he is indeed an offender or a victim, and any information that might not have reached the public, that may result into a positive assessment of the client. The second party would play the role of a medical assistant. This individual’s duty would be conducting some medical tests on the client, which will prove essential in the assessment of the client.
It is vital that as an expert witness, I should provide a clear account of my interpretation and also reasoning since it will play a massive role in the determination of the verdict. This being the case, each of the involved parties would have to adhere to high ethical standards in their pursuit of further insight into the client. This would involve tabling research in a manner that is fair without misrepresentation of the evidence. According to a research article by (Weissberger, 2007), parties to an expert witness have the duty to represent expertise explicitly and, as a result, point out authentic knowledge and its interpretation on the grounds of that knowledge.
Still on the matter of ethics, as an expert witness, I propose a code of ethics that I, together with the two parties, would be working with. This code is as follows;
- Expert Neutrality
As an expert witness, I, together with my parties, shall serve with complete non-alignment and objectivity. We shall impartially help the court on issues within our expertise area. Full cooperation would be given to the retaining counsel; however, our independence would not be shaken, and as a result, we will present an impartial picture of our findings that is in line with the case and to our opinion as experts.
- Confidentiality
We shall practice confidentiality regarding the case and the jurisdiction in which I, as the expert witness, is retained. We would, therefore, have the assumption that all the talks with the client and even the retaining counsel would be confidential on the grounds of discovery and testimony. This would be the case unless directed otherwise.
- Conflict of Interest
As an expert witness, I shall not accept any engagements within the case that I consider conflicting, which are factually related as this will lead to the falsifying and manipulation of the case.
- Professionalism
As an expert witness, I shall practice professionalism in the manner that I will only agree to engagements, which I deem are related to my area of competence and psychological training.
My code of ethics is in line with the ethics of psychologists, as outlined in the American Psychological Association (APA). An excellent example of this is section two of the ethical code of conduct of psychologists, which talks of the confines of competence. It states that psychologists can only issue services or conduct research within the confines of their competence (American Psychological Association, 2020).
On the matters of fees for my services as an expert witness, I will be guided by the Federal Rules of Evidence standards for compensation which state that “compensation is payable in a criminal or civil case that involves just compensation under the fifth amendment, from any funds that are issued by the law” (“Rule 706. Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses,” 2020). The fee schedule is, therefore, as illustrated in the table below.
Proposed Fee Schedule
| Task at hand | Fee Charged |
| Record Review | $356 (per hour) |
| Diagnostic Evaluation | $380 (per hour) |
| Report Writing | $ 2000 (combined sum) |
| Interviewing | $340 (per hour) |
| Consultation with Other Professionals | $300 (per hour) |
| Expert Testimony | $478 (per hour) |
| Depositions | $ 448(per hour) |
| Appointment Cancellation Fees | $ 500 (Combined sum) |
| Retainers | $ 3000 (Combined amount) |
| Financing Charges | $700 (combined sum) |
| Insurance Coverage | $ 833 (monthly basis) |
Risk assessment is essential in my role as an expert witness. In my proposal for the risk assessment to be used, I use the Daubert Standard as a basis. This standard is essential since it presides over the admissibility of the testimony issued by the expert witness during the proceedings of the court. This, therefore, means that as the expert witness, I have a huge task of convincing the court of my statements through the plausibility and acceptability of the conclusions that I draw scientifically (Jayjock et al., 2011). My risk assessment therefore as related to the Daubert standard is as follows;
Risk Assessment Model
| Risk | Verdict |
| Whether the case is high profile | If indeed, it is high profile, there is a very high probability of a challenge. |
| Whether experts in my field of psychology occasionally get Daubert challenged. | If yes, the risk is high for my getting challenged. |
| Whether the opinions I will be presenting would be new or outside the Daubert Standard. | If this is the case, my risk increases. |
| Whether the retaining counsel is under any circumstance, contemporary and inexperienced. | If so, the counsel may not adequately deal with Daubert challenges. |
| Whether I have ever been “Dauberted out” before. | If this is a yes, then my track record will work in my favor. |
Classic, as well as contemporary psychology theories, reinforce my choice of risk assessment. Some of these theories include Interdisciplinary dialogue, which emphasizes the interdisciplinary aspect of research and its role in our comprehension of the human brain (Borghi & Fini, 2019). This theory emphasizes my risk assessment approach in the sense that it would guide the opinions that I present in the court, which should be in an interdisciplinary aspect. Epistemological awareness is another theory. This theory stresses the understanding of where the future is headed in the field of psychology (Borghi & Fini, 2019). Changes and moderations that have occurred need to be considered during assessment. It thus relates to my risk assessment in the essence that the Daubert standards are among the modifications in today’s world, and therefore I should be aligned to it.
As psychological evaluation is critical in the determination of the case, my prepared psychological assessment report that illustrates the use of objective testing data is therefore as follows;
Psychological Assessment Report (Chandler, 2014)
Client: Doug X, Gender: Male, Born 18/09/1971
Assessment Date: 27/09/2004
Assessment Tools:
“Records review.”
“Clinical Interview”
“Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2)”
“Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI-3)”
“Inventory of Offender Risk, needs and Strengths (IORNS)”
“Spousal Assault Risk Assessment Guide (SARA)”
Referral Purpose: Offender Risk Assessment
Records Review: The court referred Mr. Doug for an assessment om his mental health, which was to act as a basis for the parole hearing. His reason for incarceration was because of a furious assault on his spouse. In the year 2011 and the subsequent year after, Mr. Doug also had police reports on the same violence against his spouse. He sold narcotic drugs as a means of income. As reported, it was the “affairs” of his spouse Susan that resulted in the decline of Mr. Doug’s health mentally, leading him to commit the assault. His previous evaluations showed no psychosis signs. He, however, had problems at an emotional level consistent with his mood disorders. His initial MMPI-2 check let out the PD score of 65 (Chandler, 2014).
Clinical Interview: Mr. Doug’s condition psychologically was evaluated using psychometric scales, a common practice in the medical profession. The tests conducted assessed the client’s healthy mental wise and the risk of intimate partner recession. The client acquired a SARA result of 50. As stated by (Dustin ,2016) in his article, SARA contained a specific objective scale, which was three-pointed in the sense that zero represented absenteeism, one served the subthreshold, and two embodied presence. All factors constant, the total raw score is, therefore, forty. Thus, in the objective nature of agreeing or disagreeing, it is indeed agreeable that the result is inadmissible. The conclusion drawn here was, therefore, that the client in the future has a high chance of involving himself in acts of violence against his spouse. Furthermore, Mr. Doug can be classified as a delta parent. This is as a result of his association with people experiencing antisocial behaviors. The client achieved a PD result of 74 and, in an objective testing aspect, shows that it is true the client has a high probability of becoming violent again.
Recommendations: Individuals classified as delta risk parents usually tend to have high probabilities of manhandling and maltreating their family, spouse, and children combined. The chance of manipulating the court into reducing their prison time is also high. The client, Mr. Doug, through his exploitative thinking and issues to do with drugs, places him at a high probability of hurting his family through an assault in the coming future. Due to this, the client must put into consideration counseling sessions, which involve prevention of instances of relapse, stability in a legal manner, and also safety plus supervision organization (Chandler ,2014).
Classic, as well as contemporary psychology theories, reinforce my claims in diagnostic consultation. It supports my assertions that based on the theories, the importance of scientific evidence is stressed, and how it presents new perspectives into human psychology, for instance, the part simulation plays in understanding an individual psychologically (Borghi & Fini, 2019).
The treatment strategies put in place for the treatment of the client (Mr. Doug) are quite useful in the essence that, through counseling, would be able to make him integrate back into society in a manner that is without violence. Since he is seen as a potential threat to his spouse and children, the counseling sessions would guide him on the importance of sticking together as a family with love as the binding factor and not violence. Ways in which his violence can be diminished or eradicated will also be presented to him. On the issue of manipulative thinking to get whatever he wants, the counseling would strive to do away with his mentality and give him a more positive thinking point. All this combined show the efficacy of the treatment strategy that is put in place for the client.
Classic, as well as contemporary psychology theories, reinforce the conclusions brought about by this treatment strategy. A good instance of the support of these theories on the treatment strategy is still on the theory of Epistemological awareness. This theory stresses the importance of Experiments in the field of psychology and the importance of scientists bringing together their research in a treatment’s aspect, together into one conventional theory (Borghi & Fini, 2019).
According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702, the testimony that is provided by expert witnesses should be that of an expert’s point of view or should be based on sufficient enough data to validate the claims. This being the case, for the court to be sure that my testimony is based on adequate facts and is obtained from reliable methods, I intend to put forward inferences based on the application of specialized knowledge to facts. In this sense, I will make sure that the theory I present in court can be tested i.e., the theory can be disputed for the reason that is objective. I will also use approaches that are peer-reviewed and contain publicly known error rates, and finally, I will use methods that are agreed upon by the scientific community. My claims are justified by the case of Daubert against Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc in the year 1993 and to the rest of the cases that apply Daubert. Here, the court tasked the trial judges with the duty of excluding all testimonies that were declared unreliable. Therefore, the rule was that expert testimony was subject to admissibility questions by the trial court to determine whether the testimonies could be relied upon or not (“Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses,” 2020).
As summarized earlier in my agreement, I also submit my affidavit to inform the court of the criminal proceedings that are regarding this client, Mr. X.
Expert Witness Affidavit
State of ________________________, County of ________________________
My current legal name is ________________________, and my current occupation is ________________________. I am presently ________________________ years old, and my current address of residence is ________________________, ________________________, ________________________ ________________________.
________________________.
Proceedings: I intend to put forward inferences based on the application of specialized knowledge to facts. In this sense, I will make sure that the theory I present in court can be tested i.e., the theory can be disputed for the reason that is objective. I will also use theories that are peer-reviewed and contain publicly known error rates, and finally, I will use methods that are agreed upon by the scientific community
Findings: The conclusion drawn here was, therefore, that the client in the future has a high chance of involving himself in acts of violence against his spouse. Furthermore, Mr. Doug can be classified as a delta parent.
Expert opinion: Due to this, the client must put into consideration counseling sessions, which involve prevention of instances of relapse, stability in a legal manner, and also safety plus supervision organization. The treatment strategies put in place for the treatment of the client (Mr. Doug) are quite useful in the essence that through counseling, would be able to make him integrate back into the society in a manner that is without violence
I, at this moment, state that the information above is accurate, to the best of my knowledge. I also confirm that the information here is both accurate and complete, and relevant information has not been omitted.
Signature of Individual
_________________________________
Date
_________________________________
Notary Public
_______________________
Title and Rank
_______________________
Date of Commission Expiry
_______________________
References
American Psychological Association, (2020). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Apa.org. Retrieved 28 June 2020, from https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/.
Borghi, A., & Fini, C. (2019). Theories and Explanations in Psychology. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00958
Chandler, D. (2014). CASE SCENARIOS [eBook]. Retrieved 28 June 2020, from http://20200623193052psy_622_casescenarios_pages13_30%20(2).pdf.
Dustin, M. (2016). Spousal Assault Risk Assessment (SARA). Retrieved from: http://dustinkmacdonald.com/spousal-assault-risk-assessment-sara-guide/
Jayjock, M., Armstrong, T., & Taylor, M. (2011). The Daubert Standard as Applied to Exposure Assessment Modeling Using the Two-Zone (NF/FF) Model Estimation of Indoor Air Breathing Zone Concentration as an Example. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 8(11), D114-D122. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2011.624387
Mangraviti, J. (2019). Expert Witness Requirements – SEAK, Inc. SEAK, Inc. Retrieved 28 June 2020, from https://seak.com/blog/expert-witness/expert-witness-requirements/#:~:text=According%20to%20Federal%20Rule%20of,is%20a%20very%20broad%20standard
Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses. LII / Legal Information Institute. (2020). Retrieved 28 June 2020, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702.
Rule 706. Court-Appointed Expert Witnesses. LII / Legal Information Institute. (2020). Retrieved 28 June 2020, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_706.
Weissberger, E. (2007). The Ethics Forum: The Ethics of Being an Expert Witness. Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin, 16(4), 86-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/lob.200716486