Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This pilot study examines the “preparedness” of attorneys as perceived by respondent expert witnesses. Retaining and opposing counsel were rated with regard to their familiarity with the respondent's qualifications, with the respondent's published writings, and with the psychiatric and legal issues of the case in question. Respondents also addressed whether retaining and opposing counsel were sufficiently ready for deposition, direct examination at trial, and cross examination at trial. Respondents found familiarity with legal issues of the case and readiness for deposition as well as cross examination at trial to be the most salient indicia of “preparedness,” particularly when these attributes were ascribed to opposing counsel.

Keywords

Attorney preparedness expert witnesses trial practice witness examination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Andrich

(1988). Rasch models for measurement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bond

T. G.

, & Fox

C. M.

(2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Commons

M. L.

Miller

P. M.

, & Gutheil

T. G.

(2004). Expert witness perceptions of bias in experts. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 32, 70–75.

Dattilio

F. M.

Commons

M. L.

Adams

K. M.

Gutheil

T. G.

, & Sadoff

R. L.

(2006). Pilot Rasch scaling of lawyers' perceptions of expert bias. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 34, 482–491.

Gutheil

T. G.

(2000a, October). Presidential address. Speech delivered at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Vancouver, BC.

Gutheil

T. G.

(2000b). The presentation of forensic psychiatric evidence in court. Israeli Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 37, 137–144.

Gutheil

T. G.

(2001). Adventures in the twilight zone: Empirical studies of the attorney-expert relationship. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 13–17.

Gutheil

T. G.

Commons

M. L.

, & Miller

P.M.

(2001). Personal questions on cross-examination: A pilot study of expert witness attitudes. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 29, 85–88.

Gutheil

T. G.

, & Sutherland

P. K.

(1999). Forensic assessment, witness credibility, and the search for truth through expert testimony in the courtroom. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 27, 289–312.

10.

Linacre

J. M.

(2003). Winsteps: Multiple-choice, rating scale and partial credit Rasch analysis. Chicago, IL: Mesa Press.

11.

Pfau

Mullen

L. J.

Deidrich

, & Garrow

(1995). Television viewing and public perceptions of attorneys. Human Communication Research, 21, 307–330.

12.

Rasch

(1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

13.

Shapiro, L. J., & Associates. (2002). Public perceptions of lawyers: Consumer research findings. Chicago: American Bar Association.

14.

Spitz

D. M.

(2000). Heroes or villains? Moral struggles vs. ethical dilemmas: An examination of dramatic portrayals of lawyers and the legal profession in popular culture. Nova Law Review, 24, 725–750.

15.

Strasburger

L. H.

Gutheil

T. G.

, & Brodsky

(1997). On wearing two hats: Role conflict in serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 448–456.

16.

Wright

B. D.

, & Stone

M. H.

(1979). Best test design. Chicago: Mesa Press.

Attorney Preparedness as Judged by Experts: An Empirical Pilot Study

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References