Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Search research articles

Related Experiment Videos

The silent expert.

David B Menkes¹

¹Wales College of Medicine, Technology Park, Wrexham LL13 7YP, UK. menkes@doctors.org.uk

The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

|July 18, 2006

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

A psychiatrist secretly recorded a deposition, admitting to eavesdropping on instructions from attorneys. This deceptive practice raises significant ethical concerns regarding expert witness conduct and legal proceedings.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by

Same author

The first year of assisted dying in New Zealand through the lens of healthcare professionals not directly involved in the process.

BMC palliative care·2025

Same author

LSDDEP2: study protocol for a randomised, double-dummy, triple-blind, active placebo-controlled, parallel groups trial of LSD microdosing in patients with major depressive disorder.

Trials·2024

Same author

Eating Disorder and Other Psychiatric Hospitalizations in New Zealand During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The International journal of eating disorders·2024

Same author

Effect of MDMA-assisted therapy on mood and anxiety symptoms in advanced-stage cancer (EMMAC): study protocol for a double-blind, randomised controlled trial.

Trials·2024

Same author

Direct-to-consumer advertising: a modifiable driver of overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

BMJ evidence-based medicine·2024

Same author

Assessing general hospital doctors' attitudes toward psychiatric care in multicultural settings.

BMC research notes·2024

Same journal

National Survey of Undergraduate and Graduate Medical Education Exposure to Correctional Psychiatry.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

Pregnancy Criminalization in the United States.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

In Reply.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

Letter.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Practice Resource for Managing Violence in State Hospitals with Forensic Patients.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

Same journal

Plea Bargaining Participation and Competency Evaluation Considerations.

The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law·2026

See all related articles

Area of Science:

Forensic Psychiatry
Legal Psychology
Professional Ethics

Background:

Telephonic depositions are a common method for gathering testimony in legal cases.
Expert witnesses play a crucial role in providing specialized knowledge during legal proceedings.
Maintaining the integrity and ethical conduct of all parties involved in depositions is paramount.

Purpose of the Study:

To examine the ethical implications of a psychiatrist expert witness electronically eavesdropping on a deposition.
To analyze the rationalizations provided for deceptive expert witness behavior.
To discuss the impact of such misconduct on legal proceedings and professional standards.

Main Methods:

The study is based on a case report following a telephonic deposition.

Related Experiment Videos

Information was gathered through the author's discovery of the eavesdropping incident.

Cross-examination of the expert witness provided direct testimony regarding the eavesdropping.

Main Results:

A psychiatrist expert witness electronically eavesdropped on a six-hour telephonic deposition.
The expert admitted to eavesdropping under the direction of state's attorneys.
The expert denied any wrongdoing despite the deceptive and unethical nature of the act.

Conclusions:

The psychiatrist's actions constitute a serious breach of professional ethics and legal integrity.
The case highlights the potential for misconduct by expert witnesses and the need for vigilance.
Discussion of the ethical ramifications is crucial for upholding trust in legal and psychiatric professions.