Improving the Reliability of Expert Testimony in Suicide Litigation

Abstract

The topic of suicide assessment is of interest to mental health practitioners because it is one where they often feel very susceptible to criticism in the event of a completed suicide. In the absence of defined academic or professional standards, practitioners rightfully feel vulnerable to the potential consequences of a legally challenged assessment. The lack of recognized standards is also problematic for trial courts because it forces them to rely heavily on the testimony of expert witnesses. In recent years the standard for admissibility of proposed expert testimony in federal court has changed significantly, shifting from emphasizing experts' credentials as the primary bases for their testimony to a more scientific analysis of the methods and practices they used in reaching their conclusions. The federal standard gives far more latitude to trial judges to accept or reject an expert's proposed testimony based on its perceived relevance and reliability. These new standards permanently change the criteria attorneys will use in selecting experts to provide mental health testimony. Now attorneys must find experts who not only are qualified but whose testimony can withstand rigorous examination to determine its scientific merit. This paper acquaints potential mental health experts with these new guidelines and presents criteria for developing more objective guidelines to evaluate the adequacy of any suicide assessment while ensuring the scientific reliability of testimony.