Testifying About Mitigation: When Social Workers and Other Mental Health Professionals Face Aggressive Cross-Examination
Main Article Content
Abstract
Aggressive cross-examinations can be challenging and difficult for social workers and other mental health professionals who testify in court as expert witnesses. Although several sources of guidance for expert witnesses are available, responses to cross-examination can be understood especially clearly in case-specific contexts. This article describes the nature of mitigation assessments and presents cross-examination of a social worker offering psychosocial mitigation testimony in the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial. The cross-examination questions and answers are discussed in several categories, including challenges to objectivity, challenges to thoroughness and competence, challenges to validity, and differing findings by another expert. Each set of questions and answers is accompanied by interpretative comments about how to cope with the specific cross-examination strategies.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
-
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
-
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
-
NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
References
Brodsky, S. L. (1991). Testifying in court: Guidelines and maxims for the expert witness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Brodsky, S. L. (1999). The expert expert witness: More maxims and guidelines for testifying in court. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books.
Brodsky, S. L. (2004). Coping with cross-examination and other pathways to effective testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Books. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/10748-000
Brodsky, S. L., Griffin, M. P., & Cramer, R. J. (2010). The Witness Credibility Scale: An outcome measure for expert witness research. Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 28, 892-907. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.917
Eisenberg, J. R. (2004). Law, psychology, & death penalty litigation. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press.
Fabian, J. M. (2009). Mitigating murder at capital sentencing: An empirical and practical psycho-legal strategy. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 9(1), 1-34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/15228930802425084
Kerr, N. L. (1981). Psychology of the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978).
Lubet, S. (1999). Expert testimony: A guide for expert witnesses and the lawyers who examine them. Chicago: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Terrell, J., & Staller, K.M. (2003). Buckshot's case: Social work and death penalty mitigation in Alabama. Qualitative Social Work, 2, 7-23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325003002001276
Vogelsang, J. (2001). The witness stand: A guide for clinical social workers in the courtroom. New York: Haworth Social Work.