Law And Psychology: Two Incongruent Worlds

Popularly, Psychology, as a behavioral science, has been drawn into courtroom cases more and more. Consequently, it is important for lawyers and psychologists to better understand each other. At this forensic interface, there is an urgent need for both parties to recognize how their respective languages, rules, and playing fields differ so that they can work together collaboratively and effectively.

One difference between them, for example, is that in Psychology there is only one truth, empirically established, per topic. In Law however, there exist competing truths because the nature of court proceedings is adversarial. Another example: In Psychology, there is no such term as "insanity"; whereas the Law has a specific meaning for it.

This presentation covers:

• The broad array of differences between Psychology and the Law
• How psychologists and attorneys can come to a greater understanding and robust mutual benefit.
• What attorneys can expect from a forensic psychologist and what they cannot expect.

How to Use a Forensic Psychologist

There are numerous ways that a forensic psychologist can make a significant difference when assisting in courts of law - whether civil, criminal, family, or probate. Law schools teach little about how to identify and screen useful expert witnesses.

In this age of exciting scientific breakthroughs, forensic psychologists can help lawyers buttress their cases in ways that satisfy the newly established criteria set forth in the Daubert and Kumho decisions. These rules of expert testimony admissibility bear directly on issues like: competencies; psychic harm/proximate cause; malingering; pre-existing psychiatric disorder; pain and suffering.

This presentation covers:

• How best to take advantage of the Federal Rules that permit experts to render opinions as evidence.
• How to identify a competent expert, and to avoid "surprises" on the stand.
• How to help the expert help you.