An Alternative Approach to Writing Forensic Mental Health Reports

Abstract

Judges, considering themselves relatively immune to the corrupting influence of irrelevant, unsubstantiated, or prejudicial evidence, will generally admit for their own scrutiny testimony they would hold inadmissible in a jury trial. In a bench trial, therefore, the forensic mental health expert can approach his job in the role of an advisor presenting an unbowdlerized overview to a broadly empowered professional administrator rather than in the role of a presenter of material, carefully edited according to the rules of evidence, designed to preserve the naiveté of a committee of amateur fact finders. This article argues the practical wisdom of modifying the content of forensic reports to match the powers and limitations of the prospective recipients, exemplifying its thesis with a sample report.