Last year, in McWilliams v. Dunn, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that indigent defendants have a right to mental health experts who can assist in their defense. As such, cross-examining these experts may become more routine.
During the first part of the seminar, DDA Frank Santoro will provide an update on relevant case law and statutes, as well as how to successfully prepare for and cross-examine mental health experts.
Roberto Flores de Apodaca, Ph.D., will then discuss ways that mental health experts can be challenged ethically and effectively in the following areas: 1. Voir Dire (regarding possible advocacy in their track record as consultants and abiding by professional standards of performance); 2. Accuracy in using the DSM-5 Manual (conforming to the actual criteria for a diagnosis and other challenges); 3. Use of Psychological Testing (over-reliance on clinical tests and under-reliance of Forensic Assessment Instruments); and 4. Aspects of Defense reports that undermine their credibility (e.g. advocacy, giving the defendant the benefit-of-the-doubt).
