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

Area of Science:

• Forensic Psychology
• Legal Psychology
• Mental Health Law

Background:

• The legal profession distinguishes between consulting and testifying expert roles.
• Forensic practice literature increasingly addresses the nuances of these roles.
• Understanding the boundaries of these roles is crucial for ethical and effective forensic practice.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate forensic mental health professionals' understanding of the differences between consulting and testifying expert roles.
• To assess how practitioners categorize attorney statements based on role appropriateness.

Main Methods:

• Forty-four forensic mental health professionals participated in the study.
• Participants reviewed and rated attorney statements for appropriateness to either a consulting or testifying expert role.
• Data were collected on perceived distinctions between the two roles.

Main Results:

• The study found that forensic practitioners did not consistently differentiate between consulting and testifying duties.
• There was a lack of consensus regarding which activities are appropriate for each role.
• The hypothesis that participants would clearly distinguish roles was not supported.

Conclusions:

• Forensic mental health practitioners lack a clear, consistent understanding of the boundaries between consulting and testifying expert roles.
• Further education and clarification are needed to ensure practitioners can appropriately navigate these distinct professional functions.
• This ambiguity may have implications for forensic case management and expert testimony.