Sexual offence against children is a complex issue and a major problem in South Africa. Trained and skilled social workers as expert witnesses are needed to help the courts deal with this problem in our courts. A specialised knowledge in the field of forensic expert witnessing in sexual offence cases is a must. Since a University degree in Social Work does not adequately prepare social workers to be effective expert witnesses the Social Work Profession receives much criticism in this regard. Probation Officers, Forensic Social Workers from SAPS and Forensic Social workers in private practice were included in the study in an attempt to investigate the problem and suggest possible solutions. The problem is a lack of skilled, trained and knowledgeable professionals in certain areas of the spectrum, e.g. sexual abuse in a child’s case. / Thesis (MSW (Forensic Practice))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

Sexual offence against children is a complex issue and a major problem in South Africa. Trained and skilled social workers as expert witnesses are needed to help the courts deal with this problem in our courts. A specialised knowledge in the field of forensic expert witnessing in sexual offence cases is a must. Since a University degree in Social Work does not adequately prepare social workers to be effective expert witnesses the Social Work Profession receives much criticism in this regard. Probation Officers, Forensic Social Workers from SAPS and Forensic Social workers in private practice were included in the study in an attempt to investigate the problem and suggest possible solutions. The problem is a lack of skilled, trained and knowledgeable professionals in certain areas of the spectrum, e.g. sexual abuse in a child’s case. / Thesis (MSW (Forensic Practice))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013.

Thesis (M.A. (Maatskaplike Werk)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

Thesis (M.A. (Maatskaplike Werk)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

Thesis (M.A. (Maatskaplike Werk)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2008.

A trial judge serves as gatekeeper in the courtroom to ensure that only reliable expert witness testimony is presented to the jury. Nevertheless, research shows that while judges take seriously their gatekeeper status, legal professionals in general are unable to identify well conducted research and are unable to define falsifiability, error rates, peer review status, and scientific validity (Gatkowski et al., 2001; Kovera & McAuliff, 2000). However, the abilities to identify quality scientific research and define scientific concepts are critical to preventing “junk” science from entering courtrooms. Research thus far has neglected to address that before selecting expert witnesses, judges and attorneys must first evaluate experts’ CVs rather than their scientific testimony to determine whether legal standards of admissibility have been met. The quality of expert testimony, therefore, largely depends on the ability to evaluate properly experts’ credentials. Theoretical models of decision making suggest that ability/knowledge and motivation are required to process information systematically. Legal professionals (judges and attorneys) were expected to process CVs heuristically when rendering expert witness decisions due to a lack of training in areas of psychology expertise. Legal professionals’ (N = 150) and undergraduate students’ (N = 468) expert witness decisions were examined and compared. Participants were presented with one of two versions of a criminal case calling for the testimony of either a clinical psychology expert or an experimental legal psychology expert. Participants then read one of eight curricula vitae that varied area of expertise (clinical vs. legal psychology), previous expert witness experience (previous experience vs. no previous experience), and scholarly publication record (30 publications vs. no publications) before deciding whether the expert was qualified to testify in the case. Follow-up measures assessed participants’ decision making processes. Legal professionals were not better than college students at rendering quality psychology expert witness admissibility decisions yet they were significantly more confident in their decisions. Legal professionals rated themselves significantly higher than students in ability, knowledge, and motivation to choose an appropriate psychology expert although their expert witness decisions were equally inadequate. Findings suggest that participants relied on heuristics, such as previous expert witness experience, to render decisions.

The current study examined the impact of expert witness orientation (researcher or clinical practitioner) and type of testimony (testimony for the prosecution, for the defense, for both prosecution and defense, and no testimony) on mock jurors‟ decisions in a sexual abuse trial. Participants read a summary of a sexual abuse criminal trial based on recovered memory; the summary included expert witness testimony (varied across participants based on the conditions described above). Participants then completed a juror decision making task. Results showed that expert witness testimony provided by a researcher did not impact mock jurors‟ guilt ratings any differently than the expert witness testimony provided by a clinical practitioner. However, type of testimony had a significant effect on jurors‟ guilt ratings. The prosecution witness expert testimony influenced mock jurors‟ decision in favor of the prosecution and testimony by a defense expert influenced the jurors‟ decisions in favor of the defense.

The aim of this research was to explore the lived experience of educational psychologists (EPs) working as expert witnesses in the family court and to capture some of their tacit knowledge. The research was conducted during a 'perfect storm' of reforms in family justice, austerity measures and following the publication of 'The Ireland Report' (Ireland, 2012) which was highly critical of the quality of psychological reports prepared for the family courts and captured the attention of the national media at a time when several high profile cases involving expert witness malpractice were also under scrutiny. Adopting Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) as the methodology, two EP expert witnesses were interviewed using in-depth conversations based around two semi-structured interview prompts. Interview transcripts were then analysed using IPA, firstly within individual interviews and cases and then across interviews and cases. Superordinate themes emerged as five main focus points: 1) The role of being an EP and an expert witness, 2) Maintaining a phenomenological attitude, 3) Personal and professional identity, 4) The context of court and 5) The experience of the interview. Findings indicate that the widely accepted Fallon, Woods and Rooney (2010) definition of who EPs are and what EPs do also holds in the context of the family court, with the scientist-practitioner identity being further illuminated in this milieu, especially with regard to formulation, maintaining a phenomenological attitude and reflexivity.

abstract: The United States Supreme Court’s 1993 Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals case established criteria for admitting scientific evidence in federal courts. It holds that scientific evidence must be valid, reliable, and relevant, and judges are required to be “gatekeepers” of evidence by screening out evidence that has not been empirically tested or vetted through the academic community. Yet, little is known about whether psychological assessment tools are subjected to scrutiny through the standards courts are supposed to apply. In three different studies, from the perspectives of judges, attorneys, and forensic mental health experts, the authors investigate whether psychological assessment evidence is being challenged. Information was collected on participants’ experiences with challenges to psychological assessments. Judges and lawyers completed a series of experimental case vignettes to assess their decision-making about legal admissibility of different qualities of psychological assessments. It was hypothesized they would not distinguish between low- and high-quality psychological assessments in admissibility. Bayesian model selection methods did not support the null hypothesis, however. It was found attorneys differentiate between the conditions. The rates in which legal professionals and forensic mental health evaluators experienced challenges were also higher than was expected. These positive findings show there is some degree of gatekeeping psychological assessment evidence in the courts. / Dissertation/Thesis / Masters Thesis Psychology 2020

The purpose of this study was to discover if as an expert witness, an SLP can make a significant impact on the decision made by juries in the cases of defendants with a traumatic brain injury compared to no expert witness testimony. Participants were recruited from a pool of individuals who met the requirements to be a potential juror in the state of Illinois. Participants completed a survey regarding their opinions on defendants with TBI in court cases. The survey was created with the online survey generator software, “Google Forms” in order to determine if individuals would judge a defendant differently when informed of the expert witness testimony of an SLP. Results suggest a positive correlation between exposure to SLP testimony and greater leniency or rehabilitative tendencies in legal judgment. The implications of these results shine a very important light on the issue of individuals with TBI inside the criminal justice system. If cases continue to be held in a court of law without the input of specialized SLP expert knowledge, it would be difficult to say if true justice is served for each individual. With SLP expert testimony, the number of individuals with TBI who are behind bars as a result of ill-informed jury sentencing could be significantly reduced.