Jury Perceptions of Forensic Mental Health Professionals in Criminal Responsibility Evaluations

摘要

Research shows that judges and attorneys tend to find the forensic mental health testimony of psychiatrists to be more credible than that of psychologists in criminal responsibility and competency to stand trial evaluations. The present study attempts to determine if a similar bias exists among jury members in criminal responsibility evaluations and whether the degree of the psychologist (PsyD or PhD) also has an impact on jury perceptions of the expert witness' credibility. One hundred sixty-four participants were randomized into three groups, read a mock criminal responsibility evaluation, and completed questions about the evaluator's credibility, including the Witness Credibility Scale (Brodsky, Griffin & Cramer, 2010). Each group was led to believe that the report was written by an expert with a different degree (MD, PsyD, and PhD). Results indicated that there were not differences in overall ratings of credibility among the disciplines nor were there differences on any subscales of credibility. Exploratory analyses, however, showed that those in the MD group had stronger correlations between their beliefs about the expert's credibility and their own confidence in their verdicts about the defendant's guilt.