Working with the Courts: Advice for Expert Witnesses (From Forensic Psychologist’s Casebook: Psychological Profiling and Criminal Investigation, P 170-193, 2005, Laurence Alison, ed,--See NCJ-210952)

• NCJ Number: 210960
• Author(s): David Ormerod; Jim Sturman
• Date Published: 2005
• Length: 24 pages
• Sale Source: Willan Publishing
• Publication Format: Book Chapter
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This chapter examines controversial uses of psychological offender profiles in police investigations and as evidence in trials.

Abstract

The focus of the chapter is on the challenges psychologists face when they seek to assist police or present evidence in court that relies upon criminal profiles. The differences between criminal investigation and trial are discussed in terms of how the law looks upon psychological profiles. In many cases, the authors argue, judges misgivings about the use of psychological profiles as investigative tools and as trial evidence is due to the general lack of understanding over what an offender profile actually is. The ways in which psychological offender profiling contribute to the investigative process and to intelligence-led policing in general are discussed, followed by the difficulties inherent in psychologists working with police to help identify criminal suspects, including ethical issues and problems concerning disclosure and discrimination. The use of psychology to prepare for trials is explored, including the appropriateness of psychologists advising counsel on how to examine certain witnesses or how to sway the jury to form particular opinions. The relevance and admissibility of psychological evidence is examined, followed by a discussion on the use of experts in court. The ways in which the expert qualification, helpfulness, and reliability impact on the admissibility of their testimony in court is described, as are the challenges of admitting expert evidence that has relied on novel techniques. The final section outlines how the admissibility of investigative psychology as evidence in a criminal trial in England or Wales remains unlikely in terms of establishing suspect identity, but remains possible within a limited scope, such as testimony regarding the crime scene. In closing the authors note that one of the key restraints keeping psychological profiles out of courtrooms is the fact that psychological profiling is practiced in an inconsistent manner. References