Consultation, Testimony, and Professional Practice
Consultation, Testimony, and Professional Practice
Forensic psychologists often serve as consultants and expert witnesses. Candidates must understand the role of the expert witness, the difference between fact and expert testimony (e.g., Daubert/Frye standards), and the ethics of consultation (e.g., avoiding conflicts of interest). Traps include offering opinions beyond one's expertise, failing to prepare adequately for testimony, and confusing the roles of consultant and expert witness. Another trap is assuming that expert testimony is always admissible; courts apply admissibility standards. Additionally, candidates should know about record-keeping, billing, and other professional practice issues.
Worked example: An expert is asked to testify about a defendant's risk of future violence. Under Daubert, the judge must determine whether the testimony is based on reliable methods (e.g., validated risk assessment tools) and is relevant. The expert should clearly explain the basis and limitations of their opinion. Rule of thumb: always tie opinions to data and acknowledge uncertainty; avoid absolute statements.
Key concepts: expert witness, Daubert/Frye, consultation ethics, admissibility, record-keeping, professional boundaries.