Cross-Examination of the Expert

Cross-Examination of the Expert

YEAR
CROSS-EXAMINATION
AUTHOR SOURCE SELECTION ABSTRACT

2009 Mock jurors' judgments about opposing scientific experts-Do cross-examination deliberation and need for cognition matter? Jesica Salerno MA
Michelle McCauley PhD psychology journal 8000 The purpose of this study was to determine how cross-examination affects jurors judgments in a case with opposing experts who differ in quality and whether it might be especially helpful for jurors who are less motivated to process information thoroughly (i.e., low need for cognition or NFC). Fifty-five college students listened to a civil trial that included testimony from one high- and one low-quality expert. Half heard cross-examination of both experts, half heard no cross-examination. Participants completed verdicts and ratings of defendant culpability and expert quality before and after deliberating in juries. Culpability ratings were more in support of the high-quality expert after deliberation (compared to pre-deliberation), but this effect was significantly stronger for lower (versus higher) NFC jurors. Furthermore, this interaction was stronger when the jurors did not have the benefit of cross-examination. The cross-examination effect was mediated by quality ratings of the low-quality (but not the high-quality) expert. In practice, this means that cross-examination affects jurors judgments, especially for jurors less motivated to process testimony thoroughly, by helping jurors recognize a flawed expert witness.

2007 Mock Trial-The trial will focus on the direct and cross examination of the psychiatrists in a medical malpractice case involving the suicide of a patient Roger Sharp JD
Michael Bradford LLB
Eric Fine MD
Anna Scherzer MD
Alan Levy JD psychiatry CD 10488 Our mock trial this year will focus on direct and cross-examination psychiatrists as expert witnesses in a medical malpractice case involving the suicide of a patient voluntarily admitted to a neuropsychiatric institute. Attendees will learn about expert testimony in court and how to conform expert testimony to optimal style and content. All of the College's mock trials are fictionalized and presented solely to educate the attending forensic psychiatrists. Actors in the trial are: Roger T. Sharp, JD, Attorney at Law in Salt Lake City; Michael Bradford, Attorney at Law in Phoenix; Eric Fine, MD in private practice of consultative and forensic psychiatry in Philadelphia; Anna Scherzer, MD, board certified forensic child and adolescent psychiatrist in Scottsdale; Alan L. Levy, JD, Chief of the Criminal Division, Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney's Office in Fort Worth; Mr. Levy plays the trial judge in the mock trial.

2001 The effective expert witness--workshop (1of 2) Steven Pinkert, MD, JD psychiatry tapes 1063 This workshop is meant to enhance expert testimony in direct and cross examination and consists of a lecture followed by a demonstration. There will be an overview of courtroom procedure, evidentiary rules and objections and focus on effective courtroom technique, emphasizing jury communication skills that include: simplifying the subject matter, jury perception, appeal and receptivity.

1996 Behavioral indicators of sexual abuse and their unreliability-vigorous cross-examination Terence W Campbell PhD psychology tape 1446 Behavioral indicators supposedly characteristic of the sexually abused population are regularly cited in legal proceedings as probative evidence of abuse. In fact, however, these indicators are more prejudicial than probative. This presentation will review issues of diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, and interrater reliability to demonstrate the many problems undermining the use of such indicators. Examples of the cross examination experts would likely encounter when relying on these indicators will be outlined. Participants will increase their awareness of how low interrater reliability compromises any rating scale; learn how all rating scales should be evaluated with regard to both diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity; and learn more about vigorous cross examination associated with using these indicators

1993 Permanent disability and apportionment -cross-examination of the psychiatrist Barry Satzman JD psychiatry tapes 10145 Detailed analysis and discussion of a forensic case in which a report was written for litigation purposes. The psychiatrist was cross-examined in deposition by agreement of both parties to the claim. In learning the details of this actual case history, participants will better understand the disparate roles of psychiatrists and attorneys in compensation litigation. At issue in this case is the presence of two separate and distinctly different psychiatric diagnoses made by the same Agreed Medical Examiner who evaluated the applicant on two different occasions approximately a year apart. Attorney for the applicant vigorously challenged this finding and cross-examined the psychiatrist in deposition. In addition to full history, discussion of the case and argument, both the psychiatric reports and the deposition will be discussed by the attorney.

1991 Cross-examination of the mental health expert in the criminal case Jeremy Margolis JD
Jerome Schulte MD psychiatry tapes 1871 Inspector General of the State of Illinois and Director of the Illinois State Police discusses cross examination of the forensic mental health expert in the criminal case. Legal advice.

1991 Preparing the expert witness for trial - effective direct and cross-examination Roger T Sharp JD psychiatry tapes 10183 Expert psychological testimony in court, specifically, the necessary prerequisites of trial preparation and effective direct and cross-examination examination.

1989 Criminal state of mind testimony- brief history and cross-examination issues Andrew J Thorpe JD
Donald Baumeister JD psychology tape 1492 While intoxication and mental disability are still valid defenses to most types of crime, a number of new developments and their impact on those accused of criminal acts are reviewed. Challenges to psychological testimony under cross-examination discussed.

1989 Cross-examination of expert mental health professionals Eric Marcus MD psychiatry journal 6015 Skillful cross-examination by attorneys aims at isolating and underscoring the relevant facts in a case and exposing conjecture by expert witnesses. The artful attorney will salvage only verifiable facts and vigorously challenge unseen assumptions and speculations.

1987 Handling difficult cross-examination as an expert witness- a practical approach Rick D. Bauman, PhD
psychology tape 1830 An alternative title of this presentation might be, Ziskin, a good warning, but not a terror. A theoretical and practical repertoire for coping with aggressive legal questioning in the courtroom. The speaker identifies critical areas raised by such people such as Jay Ziskin, author of Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony, and the philosophical approach to cross-examining mental health professionals, both psychologists and psychiatrists.

YEAR	CROSS-EXAMINATION	AUTHOR	SOURCE	SELECTION	ABSTRACT
2009	Mock jurors' judgments about opposing scientific experts-Do cross-examination deliberation and need for cognition matter?	Jesica Salerno MA Michelle McCauley PhD	psychology journal	8000	The purpose of this study was to determine how cross-examination affects jurors judgments in a case with opposing experts who differ in quality and whether it might be especially helpful for jurors who are less motivated to process information thoroughly (i.e., low need for cognition or NFC). Fifty-five college students listened to a civil trial that included testimony from one high- and one low-quality expert. Half heard cross-examination of both experts, half heard no cross-examination. Participants completed verdicts and ratings of defendant culpability and expert quality before and after deliberating in juries. Culpability ratings were more in support of the high-quality expert after deliberation (compared to pre-deliberation), but this effect was significantly stronger for lower (versus higher) NFC jurors. Furthermore, this interaction was stronger when the jurors did not have the benefit of cross-examination. The cross-examination effect was mediated by quality ratings of the low-quality (but not the high-quality) expert. In practice, this means that cross-examination affects jurors judgments, especially for jurors less motivated to process testimony thoroughly, by helping jurors recognize a flawed expert witness.
2007	Mock Trial-The trial will focus on the direct and cross examination of the psychiatrists in a medical malpractice case involving the suicide of a patient	Roger Sharp JD Michael Bradford LLB Eric Fine MD Anna Scherzer MD Alan Levy JD	psychiatry CD	10488	Our mock trial this year will focus on direct and cross-examination psychiatrists as expert witnesses in a medical malpractice case involving the suicide of a patient voluntarily admitted to a neuropsychiatric institute. Attendees will learn about expert testimony in court and how to conform expert testimony to optimal style and content. All of the College's mock trials are fictionalized and presented solely to educate the attending forensic psychiatrists. Actors in the trial are: Roger T. Sharp, JD, Attorney at Law in Salt Lake City; Michael Bradford, Attorney at Law in Phoenix; Eric Fine, MD in private practice of consultative and forensic psychiatry in Philadelphia; Anna Scherzer, MD, board certified forensic child and adolescent psychiatrist in Scottsdale; Alan L. Levy, JD, Chief of the Criminal Division, Tarrant County Criminal District Attorney's Office in Fort Worth; Mr. Levy plays the trial judge in the mock trial.
2001	The effective expert witness--workshop (1of 2)	Steven Pinkert, MD, JD	psychiatry tapes	1063	This workshop is meant to enhance expert testimony in direct and cross examination and consists of a lecture followed by a demonstration. There will be an overview of courtroom procedure, evidentiary rules and objections and focus on effective courtroom technique, emphasizing jury communication skills that include: simplifying the subject matter, jury perception, appeal and receptivity.
1996	Behavioral indicators of sexual abuse and their unreliability-vigorous cross-examination	Terence W Campbell PhD	psychology tape	1446	Behavioral indicators supposedly characteristic of the sexually abused population are regularly cited in legal proceedings as probative evidence of abuse. In fact, however, these indicators are more prejudicial than probative. This presentation will review issues of diagnostic sensitivity, diagnostic specificity, and interrater reliability to demonstrate the many problems undermining the use of such indicators. Examples of the cross examination experts would likely encounter when relying on these indicators will be outlined. Participants will increase their awareness of how low interrater reliability compromises any rating scale; learn how all rating scales should be evaluated with regard to both diagnostic sensitivity and diagnostic specificity; and learn more about vigorous cross examination associated with using these indicators
1993	Permanent disability and apportionment -cross-examination of the psychiatrist	Barry Satzman JD	psychiatry tapes	10145	Detailed analysis and discussion of a forensic case in which a report was written for litigation purposes. The psychiatrist was cross-examined in deposition by agreement of both parties to the claim. In learning the details of this actual case history, participants will better understand the disparate roles of psychiatrists and attorneys in compensation litigation. At issue in this case is the presence of two separate and distinctly different psychiatric diagnoses made by the same Agreed Medical Examiner who evaluated the applicant on two different occasions approximately a year apart. Attorney for the applicant vigorously challenged this finding and cross-examined the psychiatrist in deposition. In addition to full history, discussion of the case and argument, both the psychiatric reports and the deposition will be discussed by the attorney.
1991	Cross-examination of the mental health expert in the criminal case	Jeremy Margolis JD Jerome Schulte MD	psychiatry tapes	1871	Inspector General of the State of Illinois and Director of the Illinois State Police discusses cross examination of the forensic mental health expert in the criminal case. Legal advice.
1991	Preparing the expert witness for trial - effective direct and cross-examination	Roger T Sharp JD	psychiatry tapes	10183	Expert psychological testimony in court, specifically, the necessary prerequisites of trial preparation and effective direct and cross-examination examination.
1989	Criminal state of mind testimony- brief history and cross-examination issues	Andrew J Thorpe JD Donald Baumeister JD	psychology tape	1492	While intoxication and mental disability are still valid defenses to most types of crime, a number of new developments and their impact on those accused of criminal acts are reviewed. Challenges to psychological testimony under cross-examination discussed.
1989	Cross-examination of expert mental health professionals	Eric Marcus MD	psychiatry journal	6015	Skillful cross-examination by attorneys aims at isolating and underscoring the relevant facts in a case and exposing conjecture by expert witnesses. The artful attorney will salvage only verifiable facts and vigorously challenge unseen assumptions and speculations.
1987	Handling difficult cross-examination as an expert witness- a practical approach	Rick D. Bauman, PhD	psychology tape	1830	An alternative title of this presentation might be, Ziskin, a good warning, but not a terror. A theoretical and practical repertoire for coping with aggressive legal questioning in the courtroom. The speaker identifies critical areas raised by such people such as Jay Ziskin, author of Coping with Psychiatric and Psychological Testimony, and the philosophical approach to cross-examining mental health professionals, both psychologists and psychiatrists.