Evidential Value of Therapist versus Forensic Expert Testimony

Abstract

Who is in a better position to assist parties in the judicial process—a treater or a forensic evaluator? For ethical reasons, treaters are often urged to avoid participating in the justice system whenever possible, be it as a fact witness or as an expert, because it would likely jeopardize the therapy relationship. In any event, when a treater is called upon to testify, how helpful is his testimony? Is the testimony of a forensic evaluator less biased? Is the testimony of the evaluator more probative? Some critics, in and out of psychiatry, call into question all psychiatric testimony, be it that of a treater or of an evaluator; some even say that testimony of an evaluator often borders on perjury. Confidentiality (an obstacle to discovery) is also a matter to be taken into account—a forensic evaluator falls under the attorney-client privilege, whereas a treater falls under the psychotherapist-patient privilege, which usually falls by the wayside in litigation. These issues are explored in this article.