A CD of the entire 4-day symposium program is available for $100.
You can play it in your computer or any MP3 compatible CD player. Call 760-929-9777

American College of Forensic Psychiatry

27th Annual Symposium

March 19-22, 2009

San Diego • The Westgate Hotel

 

The American College of Forensic Psychiatry is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide Continuing Medical Education for physicians.

The American College of Forensic Psychiatry designates this educational activity for a maximum of 23 AMA PRA Category 1 credits^TM. Physicians should only claim credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

The American College of Forensic Psychiatry certifies that this activity has been approved for 22 hours of MCLE credit by the State Bar of California.

Goal: The goal of this symposium is to keep forensic psychiatrists abreast of important issues which lie within the interface of psychiatry and law, recent developments in psychiatry that require new knowledge for expert witnesses, and new case law affecting forensic practice. Target Audience: The program is intended to benefit practicing forensic psychiatrists, psychiatrists in other subspecialties, and attorneys who litigate civil and criminal cases involving psychiatric evaluations and expert testimony. Objectives: Participants should improve their knowledge and skills in the following areas: (a) evaluation or treatment of forensic litigants and individuals with other forensic psychiatric issues; (b) new and ongoing research and developments in the field of forensic psychiatry; (c) relevant concepts useful in testifying and educating the court on mental health issues, and in working within the legal system; (d) changes in the law that affect clinical and forensic practice; (e) legal and psychiatric aspects involving the mentally disordered inmate in correctional facilities.

Disclosure of Relevant Financial Relationships: All faculty members received and signed a Disclosure of Relevant Financial Relationships statement in which they were asked to disclose all relevant financial relationships with any commercial interest. All of the faculty have indicated they have nothing to disclose.

The meetings each day will be in the Versailles Room. Registration and continental breakfast each day will be outside the meeting room. Thursday night’s welcome reception will be in the Riviera Room.

 

final Program

 

Wednesday, March 18

4:30-6:00 Early Registration—Lobby

 

Thursday, March 19

 

7:00-7:45 Registration and Continental Breakfast

7:45-8:00 Opening Remarks and Announcements

 

8:00-8:40

PTSD or Not? Iatrogenically-Induced Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Keyhill Sheorn, M.D.

With more prominent visibility of posttraumatic stress disorder, patients with medical problems are being referred to psychiatrists to be evaluated for the “trauma” of their illness. Some physicians are diagnosing “PTSD” and are “treating” this “illness.” The cycle gets reinforced by workers’ compensation or legal claims and the patient is underserved. Attendees will understand 1) the typical differential diagnoses that tend to be referred from general practitioners to psychiatrists; 2) the slippery slope of diagnosing PTSD and the gratification that provides for all parties; 3) how to treat the psychological consequences of the presenting medical complaint without introducing an unnecessary diagnosis.—Keyhill Sheorn has been in solo practice for 20 years, specializing in the long-term treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder.

 

8:40-9:20

Forensic Aspects of PTSD

Matthew Carroll, M.D.

There are suggestions of a new epidemic of PTSD, but it is unclear if this is a true or false finding. The changing epidemiology of PTSD may be affected by factors such as new stressors (from new wars), changing diagnostic criteria (definition of qualifying stressors), new motivations to have PTSD (benefits), desire for psychiatric excuses to reduce blame or culpability (my PTSD made me do it). In some situations individuals may be motivated in the opposite direction, to avoid the diagnosis of PTSD, since the diagnosis may hinder promotions in military and civilian employment. The forensic psychiatrist is increasingly being asked to form clinical and forensic opinions and to address the above issues. Attendees will understand the prevalence of PTSD, the controversial issues around PTSD, and what factors affect the diagnosis. Attendees will be able to explain how PTSD affects criminal issues, and how it is used in civil litigation.—Matthew Carroll, M.D. is a psychiatrist who served 12 years in the United States Navy, and has interviewed numerous active duty and retired military members. He has worked for the Veterans Administration for 6 years, providing PTSD evaluations.

 

9:20-10:00

Credibility

David Glaser, M.D.

Credibility should be and is an issue in forensic evaluations, whether civil or criminal. The central issue can be distilled down to asking whether consideration of interview data, record review, and the results of psychological testing leads to reasonable grounds for believing the allegations of the examinee. This is not a threshold question as much as where the person’s credibility falls along the spectrum of believability. This issue can be conceptualized as a continuum, from one extreme representing solid convergence of data supporting the claim, to the other extreme of outright malingering. The interview process provides factors to contrast with provided history, mental status examination, results of psychological testing, and what is contained with the records. There are many combinations and permutations to consider and the various elements frequently provide a mixed, rather than harmonious, perspective. A semi-quantitative formula will be provided that can be utilized as a tool to measure credibility.—David Glaser, M.D. practices clinical and forensic psychiatry in Los Angeles. He has performed many civil and criminal evaluations and has testified on numerous occasions.

 

10:00-10:15 Coffee Break

 

10:15-11:15

Pain Disorders in Litigation: Psychiatric Update

Albert M. Drukteinis, M.D., J.D.

This overview will focus on newer literature and research dealing with psychological factors in pain disorders. The interface between advances in neuroscience and behavioral observations will be discussed, as well as principles in performing evaluations on pain litigants, and obstacles to recovery. Traditional concepts of secondary gain, exaggeration, and malingering will be reviewed in light of changing paradigms which emphasize the continuum of such factors, and the contingent nature of psychiatric conclusions on established medical pathology. Attendees should learn how to approach evaluations of pain litigants, with a clear understanding of the limitations of psychiatric opinion, and invariable dependence on multiple sources of information; along with an appreciation that rather than clear divisions of contributing factors to chronic pain, the final analysis is a balancing test that weighs relative impact of multiple sources of pathology. Attendees should appreciate the difference between pain and impairment in understanding the long-term effects of injury, and how to measure the influences on both.—Albert M. Drukteinis, M.D., J.D. is Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Dartmouth Medical School, and Director of New England Psychodiagnostics, specializing in personal injury and employment stress claims.

 

11:15-12:00

Blameology for the Forensic Psychiatrist

Ansar Haroun, M.D., Kevin Timpe, Ph.D., Omar Haroun

Forensic psychiatrists (both civil and criminal) are often asked to give opinions about “blame,” but few of us receive formal training in blameology, and it is not clear if this is a topic for psychiatry school, or philosophy or law school.  In this presentation, we (a psychiatrist, a philosopher, and a student of jurisprudence) will review the role of blame in the law and psychiatry (e.g., mens rea); whether the primary object of blame is motive or intent; how blame differs from causality and other kinds of responsibility; how individuals can avoid blame through either justification, an excuse, or an exemption.  We will also ask whether or not there is a “free will problem” in forensic psychiatry.—Ansar Haroun, M.D. is a professor of psychiatry, pediatrics and law, and a practicing forensic psychiatrist for the San Diego Superior Court. He has performed many psychiatric evaluations, requiring some analysis of “blame.” Kevin Timpe is a professor of philosophy at University of San Diego, with many publications in the area of free will. Omar Haroun completed his studies of jurisprudence at Oxford, and is now a student at Columbia Law School.

 

 

12:00-1:20 Lunch Break (on your own)

1:20-2:00

Delusional Defendants and Competency

Gwen Levitt, D.O.

Delusional defendants are commonly referred for evaluations of their competency to stand trial. Conflicting opinions as to competency often arise causing consternation for the bench, lawyers, and mental health experts. Three actual case vignettes involving delusional defendants were presented to a sample of these professionals to gather information as to the attitudes and thought processes of the varying disciplines toward these cases. The findings clearly demonstrated the conflict these defendants create for the court. The opinions as to competency appear to be highly influenced by the professional’s discipline and interpretation of the competency statutes.—Gwen Levitt, D.O. is a board certified forensic psychiatrist. She is a mental health expert for both juvenile and adult divisions of the Maricopa County Superior Court.

 

2:00-3:20

Aerospace Psychiatry for the Forensic Psychiatric Consultant

Charles Chesanow, D.O., Michael Berry, M.D., M.S., Elin Berg, M.D., Ph.D., Steven Schwendeman, M.D., MS

This panel (consisting of aerospace medicine physicians and forensic psychiatrists) will present issues of interest in aerospace psychiatry including: current consultative roles, NTSB hearing challenges and strategies, the history of psychotropics in aviation, and current challenges and changes in this area as it relates to new consultative roles and opportunities.—Charles Chesanow, D.O. is Chief Psychiatrist for the FAA in Washington, DC. Michael Berry, M.D., M.S. is the Manager for the Division of Medical Specialties in the Office of Aerospace Medicine of the FAA in Washington, DC. Elin Berg, M.D., Ph.D. is board certified in general, child and adolescent and forensic psychiatry. Steven Schwendeman, M.D., MS, is a medical officer in the Aerospace Medical Certification Division at the Civil Aerospace Medical Institute.

 

3:20-3:55

Very Brief Therapy with Lifers

Alfred P French M.D.

The “Lifer” inmate moves through the grieving sequence described in the terminally ill and may reach a crisis at approximately ten years of incarceration, after legal appeals are exhausted and family support wanes. The first step is to point out that an officer who works for the CDCR for 30 years and retires at age 51 may have the Perfect Life; material wealth, freedom, and a normal family life; however, his life span after retirement is often only six to twelve months. Therefore, we must look beyond these factors, of which the inmate has none, to find the basis for a long and satisfying life. At this point is it appropriate and necessary to suggest that such resources can come from a religious perspective. Most inmate-patients eagerly welcome such discussion. The unique value of a religious perspective in dealing with the hopeless and despondent “Lifer” inmate-patient will be presented.—Alfred P. French, M.D. is a staff psychiatrist with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

 

3:55-4:30

Sex Offender Treatment at a State Hospital in California:

Legal, Clinical and Practical Issues

Richard D. May, M.D.

Sexually violent predators (SVPs) are considered a small but extremely dangerous group of people who have committed certain specific crimes and suffer a certain type of serious mental illness. Their treatment is unique and entails multiple clinical, legal, and practical issues that are interrelated. Periodic monitoring of SVP’s mental condition by one or more forensic evaluators is required for different reasons. The basis of this comprehensive forensic evaluation will be presented, including the need for such evaluations. California’s SVP Act and amendments to it by the legislature in 2006 will be discussed. Relevant landmark cases that highlight different legal criteria, standards or concepts related to SVPs will be presented.—Richard D. May, M.D. is on the staff of Coalinga State Hospital and has been involved with the management of SVPs in particular.

 

5:30-7:00 Welcome Reception—Riviera Room

 

 

Friday, March 20

 

 

7:15-8:00 Registration and Continental Breakfast

 

8:00-8:40

Being “Vetted” as an Expert: What Happens Before, During and After the Call

Richard S. Adler, M.D.

“Vetting” is the process by which lawyers identify possible experts and evaluate their suitability for a case. It can be considered “advance voir dire.” Many lawyers and experts approach this process in a nonchalant fashion—to their mutual peril. The presenter is an experienced expert witness who also frequently works as a consultant to attorneys “behind the scenes.” He has been vetted and retained to vet other potential experts. Dr. Adler will introduce the concept of “reverse vetting”—sorting out whether it is prudent to work on the particular case with a particular lawyer. Attendees will 1) understand the vetting process and its relevance to successful forensic practice; 2) become acquainted with practical action steps that they can adopt immediately to enhance the vetting process; 3) understand that vetting is not a passive one-sided process—helping them avoid participation in inappropriate cases.—Richard S. Adler, M.D. is a forensic and clinical psychiatrist in Seattle, Washington.

 

8:40-9:20

Self-Delight and Forensic Psychiatry

Alexander E. Obolsky M.D.

Why practice forensic psychiatry? One reason is that the work is enjoyable. Among many motives is the opportunity for close encounters with the wacky and shocking, eccentric and peculiar, unpredictable and capricious, demoralizing and inspiring, horrid and sordid aspects of human experience. The temporary but deep contact with the shadows of civilized life is a reward of its own. In this presentation three cases will be offered exemplifying the extraordinary aspects of forensic private practice. The goal of this presentation is to affirm elementary pleasures derived from encounters with the varieties of human experience. Attendees will be able to 1) explain the role of self-delight in the practice of forensic psychiatry; 2) describe professional attributes useful for successful encounter with strange human behaviors; 3) demonstrate renewed enthusiasm for the varieties of human experience encountered in forensic psychiatric practice.—Dr. Alexander E. Obolsky specializes in evaluation, treatment, and forensic expert work in the area of mental disorders and emotional consequences caused by disastrous and catastrophic life events.

 

9:20-11:30

Forensic Skills Workshop: The Role of the Psychiatrist in Civil Litigation

Albert M Drukteinis, M.D., J.D., Douglas Anderson, M.D.,

James J. McDonald, Jr., J.D., Timothy J. Michals, M.D.

This practical workshop will focus on advanced issues that confront psychiatrists in civil law cases, an interactive session involving moderator, panelists, and the audience. Vignettes submitted to the panel by practicing forensic psychiatrists will be read aloud and discussed. The vignettes describe problems and experiences that forensic psychiatrists often confront in their practices and in court. These will include procedural problems, such as ethical or practical issues in performing evaluations; dealing with courts, attorneys, or opposing experts; as well as substantive problems, such as dilemmas that come up in difficult cases, reliability of psychiatric opinion, and testimony. Attendees should be able to understand their colleagues’ approach to issues that routinely confront forensic psychiatrists, and to share in practical methods for dealing with such procedural and substantive challenges.—Moderator: Albert M Drukteinis, M.D., J.D., Adjunct Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Dartmouth Medical School, and Director of New England Psychodiagnostics, specializing in personal injury and employment stress claims. Panelists: Douglas Anderson, M.D. is in private practice in New York City; James J. McDonald, Jr., J.D. is a managing partner of the Irvine, CA office of Fisher & Phillips; Timothy J. Michals, M.D. is Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Forensic Psychiatry at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia.

 

10:00-10:15 Coffee Break

 

11:30-12:10

The Insanity Defense in Military Court

Elin Berg, M.D., Ph.D., Edward Berg II, Esq.

This presentation addresses the particulars of the insanity defense in military law as compared to civilian federal and state law. Since 2004 the legal approach to the insanity defense in military court may actually more closely resemble that of certain state jurisdictions. Forensic psychiatric experts as always need to be familiar with the statutes pertinent to jurisdictions in which they serve as experts. This presentation will review pertinent statutes and how they impact the role of the expert in terms of examining the defendant so that the questions raised by the court can be properly answered. The various steps involved in the evaluation as the defendant appears before the sanity board will be reviewed and case examples given. The dilemma of the expert in the role of helping the court understand the legal ramifications of the psychiatric findings and how they might influence cognition and behavior albeit without answering “the ultimate question” is discussed. Illustrative case examples will be given.—Elin Berg, M.D., Ph.D. is in private practice in Columbia, South Carolina. Edward Berg II, Esq. is Chief of Criminal Law with the Judge Advocacy General at Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia. He served four years on active duty with the Signal Corps and was on a one year tour of duty to Iraq with the 3rd Infantry Division in 2006.

 

12:10-1:30 Lunch Break (on your own)

 

1:30-2:10

Third Party Observers in Forensic Psychiatric Examinations

Timothy J. Michals, M.D., Steven E. Samuel, Ph.D.

Of the many issues raised for the forensic psychiatrist involved in civil and criminal assessments, one which stands out for its complexity is the issue of whether to permit third party observers into the examination room. The clinical and research literature almost universally argue against the presence of third party observers, yet courts rule primarily on a case-by-case basis. This presentation serves up a menu of choices to be considered by the forensic psychiatrist who is asked to conduct a forensic psychiatric examination in the presence of a third party observer. We conclude with some suggestions regarding how to respond to requests to observe the neurological examination. Attendees will become familiar with 1) the research and clinical literature on the effect of third party observers on forensic psychiatric examination; 2) relevant ethical standards, practice guidelines and policy statements; 3) responses to requests for the presence of third party observers.—Timothy J. Michals, M.D. is Clinical Assistant Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Division of Forensic Psychiatry at Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia. Steven E. Samuel, Ph.D. is a forensic psychologist and psychoanalyst in Philadelphia.

 

2:10-2:50

The False Confession: How to Understand It from Freud to the fMRI

Cassandra M. Klyman, M.D.

Psychodynamic motives emanating from a need for punishment, displaced guilt and/or narcissistic drives for attention however notorious have been the usual suspects considered to explain this perverse behavior. Recently studies of the brain—particularly in the investigation of obsessive-compulsive disorder—shed light on one source and pattern of intrusive thinking that is, in fact, modifiable in one’s experience and in one’s behavior. This presentation will focus on a single clinical example and briefly mention five other patients where this has application in the author’s practice. A review of some historical characters will be included.—Dr. Klyman is Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Wayne State University College of Medicine.

 

2:50-3:30

A Forensic Approach to Death from Methadone Treatment

George S. Glass, M.D.

Methadone, a long acting, synthetic narcotic, has been used as an analgesic since World War II. Since the 1970s it has become the treatment of last resort for narcotic addiction. Due to the drug’s long half life, and because at high doses it can block the analgesic effects of shorter acting narcotics, the federal government has supported the development of methadone maintenance programs, and studies have shown that drug addicts in these programs are less likely to continue their criminal activities. Unfortunately, the commercial success of methadone treatment for the providers is associated with an increase in the death of individuals who have been given methadone. This paper briefly reviews 3 different cases in which death occurred.—George S. Glass, M.D., a board certified psychiatrist and addictionologist, is a Clinical Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the Baylor Medical School, the University of Texas Medical School in Houston, and the Cornell Weill Medical School.

 

3:30-4:10

Desocialization by Automobile

Ralph Slovenko, LL.B., M.A., Ph.D.

This presentation discusses desocialization as a result of the proliferation of automobiles. Advertisements convey the message that the automobile is consonant with an attractive and invigorating environment. In fact, however, the proliferation of automobiles results in social isolation, ugliness, pollution, economic waste, injury, and death. “Road rage,” as aggression on the roadways is called, has become a common phenomenon. Notwithstanding, it is a topic rarely, if ever, discussed at psychiatric meetings.—Ralph Slovenko, J.D., Ph.D., is Professor of Law and Psychiatry at Wayne State University Law School. He is the author most recently of Psychiatry in Law/Law in Psychiatry.

4:10-4:50

Oswald Did Not Kill President Kennedy: The Evidence

Alen J. Salerian, M.D.

This presentation reviews the evidence against Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Based upon human anatomy, Newton’s 2nd law, ballistic evidence and witness reports, the evidence suggests Oswald did not kill President Kennedy and the Warren Report was scientifically invalid. This presentation reviews the medical, legal, ballistic and forensic evidence to prove Oswald’s innocence. Of particular significance to neuroscience and law is the nature of the traumatic brain injuries that, with careful anatomical and postmortem analysis, would reveal that Oswald was not the killer. Also reviewed are witness reports and ballistic analyses.–Alen J. Salerian, M.D. is the Medical Director of Washington Center for Psychiatry and the former Chief Psychiatric Consultant to the FBI.

 

 

Saturday, March 21

 

7:15-8:00 Registration and Continental Breakfast

 

8:00-8:45

Fundamentals: What Criminal Defense Lawyers Expect from a Forensic Psychiatrist

John T. Philipsborn, M.Ed, J.D.

Forensic psychiatrists and criminal defense lawyers working together have expectations of one another. The presenter will review what expectations experienced criminal defense lawyers have of their experts in forensic psychiatry, including familiarity with relevant legal standards, knowledge of current literature, and familiarity with the differences between legal and clinical definitions. Attendees will be able to describe what literature, basic information, and standards they should be conversant in when taking on criminal case assignments.—John T. Philipsborn is a criminal defense lawyer in San Francisco. He has figured in more than 70 reported decisions, and often published on issues involving forensic mental health expertise and the law. He has also qualified in trial courts several times as an expert on the assessment of competence to stand trial.

 

8:45-9:45

Psychiatric Malpractice Exposure: Separating Fact from Fiction

Donna Vanderpool, MBA, J.D., Eric W. Fine, M.D.

Psychiatrists are appropriately concerned about their malpractice exposure, however, psychiatrists’ perceptions of their malpractice risk may not match the reality of such risk. Psychiatrists may overestimate their actual chances of being sued as well as the chance and implication of an excess verdict. Sources of psychiatric malpractice liability, including psychopharmacology and treating patients with suicidal behavior, will be discussed. The best way for psychiatrists to minimize their liability exposure is to provide good clinical care. Three proven risk management strategies to support psychiatrists in doing what’s best for their patients by delivering good clinical care will be presented—information gathering, communication, and documentation. Vignettes from forensic evaluations will be included.—Donna Vanderpool, MBA, J.D. is the Assistant Vice President of Risk Management at PRMS, Inc. in Arlington, Virginia. Eric W. Fine, M.D. is engaged in the private practice of clinical and forensic psychiatry in Philadelphia. He is also an Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Human Behavior at the Thomas Jefferson Medical College.

 

9:45-12:00

Interactive Forensic Skills Workshop:

The Role of the Psychiatrist in Criminal Litigation

Steven Pinkert, M.D., J.D., MBA, Carla Rodgers, M.D., Clarence Watson, J.D., M.D.

This practical workshop will focus on advanced issues that confront psychiatrists in criminal law cases, an interactive session involving moderator, panelists, and the audience. Vignettes submitted to the panel by practicing forensic psychiatrists will be read aloud and discussed by the panel and by the audience. The vignettes describe problems and experiences that forensic psychiatrists often confront in their practices and in court. Attendees should be able to understand their colleagues’ approach to issues that routinely confront forensic psychiatrists, and to share in practical methods for dealing with such procedural and substantive challenges.—Steven Pinkert, M.D., J.D., MBA of the Pinkert Law Firm in Miami, practices in the areas of professional discipline, complex medical/technical litigation, admiralty, and patent law. Prior to law he practiced clinical psychiatry. Panelists: Carla Rodgers, M.D. is Clinical Assistant Professor at University of Pennsylvania Medical School and in private practice of forensic psychiatry in the Philadelphia area. Clarence Watson, J.D., M.D. is the Clinical Director of Forensic Services at Delaware Psychiatric Center in New Castle, Delaware.

10:30-10:45 Coffee Break

 

12:00-1:00

Competence to Proceed at Trial: Evaluation Dilemmas

and Approaches to Competency Restoration

Clarence Watson, J.D., M.D., Solange Margery, M.D., Robert G. Thompson, Psy.D.

This presentation will cover the legal requirements for competence to stand trial, dilemmas of the evaluation process and therapeutic approaches to the restoration of competence. There will be a short description about the use of medications and the landmark cases that have defined their use in current practices. The presenters will then offer a general overview of key aspects of the psychoeducational programs designed to help restore competence and the varied impact on specific populations such as defendants with mental retardation. There will be a review of innovative and creative ideas that some institutions are researching or have recently implemented in their psychoeducational programs (e.g., mock trials). The presenters will discuss the benefits that institutions have seen after strengthening the psychoeducational part of their restoration for competence programs. Included in the discussion will be case examples and response to various restoration interventions.—Clarence Watson, J.D., M.D. is the Clinical Director of Forensic Services at Delaware Psychiatric Center in New Castle, Delaware. Solange Margery, M.D. is the Assistant Director of Residency Training in the Department of Psychiatry at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital in Philadelphia. Robert G. Thompson, Psy.D. is a clinical and forensic psychologist at the Delaware Psychiatric Center in New Castle.

 

 

Sunday, March 22

 

 

7:15-8:00 Registration and Continental Breakfast

 

 

8:00-8:45

Women Who Have Sex With Boys

Howard B. Terrell, M.D., Brian E. Terrell

This will involve a review of the scientific and lay literature as well as a case presentation of a female public school teacher who had a one year sexual affair with a 17-year-old male student. Although she had been in counseling for over a decade, her bipolar disorder was not discovered or treated until after legal authorities became involved. Had her bipolar disorder been properly diagnosed and treated in a timely manner it is doubtful the crime would have ever occurred. The incidence of adult females having sex with underage males compared to adult males having sex with underage girls will be discussed. Signs, symptoms and mental disorders to consider in assessing women accused of having sex with underage males will be presented.—Howard B. Terrell, M.D. is Assistant Clinical Professor of Psychiatry with the UCSF School of Medicine and teaches psychiatry residents with the UCSF Fresno Medical Education Program. He has performed thousands of forensic psychiatric evaluations for California superior court judges over the past 20 years. Brian E. Terrell is a scientific research assistant and a pre-law undergraduate student in Fresno, California.

 

8:45-9:30

Psychology of Female Suicide Bombers: Motivational Factors in Context of Culture

Jamshid A. Marvasti, M.D.

In this presentation the psychology of female combatants will be explored. Special attention will be given to modern female suicide bombers/warriors: from the 16-year-old Christian Lebanese girl to Sri Lankan and Chechen female fighters to recent episodes of female Iraqi suicide bombers. Many analysts focus on “personal motivators” of the female fighters, such as losses, sexual affairs, divorce, gender conflict and infertility; in this presentation we will also focus on the motivational factors of nationalism, ideology, and the urge to fight against the perceived invaders. Brief historical biographies, the family background and the last statements of recent female suicide bombers will be explored to speculate about their psychological structure and motivation/incentive. Current psychological theories of aggression/violence and suicidality will be applied to these case studies. Attendees will: 1) learn about the phenomena of aggression and suicide bombing in general; 2) understand the psychological structure of female involvement in war and aggression and the motivation of the female suicide bomber; 3) become familiar with the issues of gender and culture for the female combatant.—Jamshid A. Marvasti, M.D. is currently a staff psychiatrist at Manchester Memorial Hospital in Connecticut.

 

 

9:30-10:15

Seeking Asylum in the United States and the Psychiatric Evaluation

Justine M. Phillips, J.D.

In the wake of the war on terror, Muslims and others are seeking asylum in the United States because of various forms of persecution in their native countries. After months of traveling to get to the U.S., the individuals are incarcerated and detained by the Department of Homeland Security. These individuals are not entitled to court-appointed counsel. If they are lucky enough to obtain a pro bono attorney to assist them, they will undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine their mental state. This presentation will discuss the objectives of the evaluation, and the outcomes. This will also be a case study as the author is presently working with an Ethiopian man seeking asylum based on political persecution.—Justine M. Phillips, J.D. is an associate with the law firm of Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek in San Diego, California. She is also pro bono attorney for Casa Cornelia Law Center providing services to individuals seeking asylum in the U.S.

 

10:15-10:30 Coffee Break

 

10:30-11:15

Forensic Assessment Interview Screening

for Intoxicant Use Patterns in Public Safety Applicants

Marcia Scott, M.D., Ronn Johnson, Ph.D.

This presentation examines that portion of the interview devoted to alcohol or intoxicant use patterns of public safety candidates. A model for formulating questions is presented along with interview techniques in the absence of background information. Techniques are also discussed for handling candidates when contradictory data is uncovered. Ethical issues associated with use of testing related to intoxicant use as well as potential negligent risk hirer issues are examined. The presentation concludes by identifying potential cultural factors while interviewing public safety applicants.—Marcia Scott, M.D. is a lecturer at Harvard Medical School and consultant to the Boston Police Department. Ronn Johnson, Ph.D. is Associate Professor and Coordinator of the Clinical Mental Health Program at the University of San Diego. He has conducted thousands of interviews on law enforcement applicants across the country.

 

11:15-12:00

PSYCHIATRY AND LAW—QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Interactive discussion with audience led by Professor Ralph Slovenko

 

 

 

AMERICAN COLLEGE OF FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY

PO BOX 130458

CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 92013

Telephone: 760-929-9777 • Fax: 760-929-9803

Email: psychlaw@sover.net • Web site: www.forensicpsychonline.com