Examining the court's perspective: Legal professionals' perceptions and preferences of expert testimony

Mental health professionals (MHPs) play important roles in providing expert opinions in courts; however, dated studies indicate that legal professionals prefer psychiatrists as mental health expert witnesses as well as mental health testimony on ultimate opinions, clinical diagnosis, and interpreting the legal standard for mental conditions. This mixed-methods study surveyed 132 judges and lawyers in the United States and Canada to examine their preferences for mental health testimony elements and MHPs as expert witnesses. Updating previous research conducted between the 1980s to 2010s, respondents were presented with 11 questions describing different elements of mental health testimonies and were asked to rate the importance of these testimonies and rank their preference for psychiatrists, psychologists or social work experts. Legal professionals preferred expert testimony on clinical diagnosis, psychological testing, and descriptive testimonies. American legal professionals considered testimony on crime statistical data related to diagnosis as more essential than did Canadians, and Canadians ranked testimony on measure of dangerousness higher. Overall, American legal professionals preferred having psychologists as expert witnesses, whereas Canadian legal professionals preferred psychiatrists. Using a qualitative reflexive thematic analysis of participants' comments on factors that contribute to a useful testimony, four themes summarized the indicators of useful expert testimony: Qualified and Engaged Experts, Relevant and Useful Information, Empirical Rigor in Testimony, and Clarity and Accessibility. Results reveal that American legal professionals are increasingly understanding the value of forensic psychologists as expert witnesses, whereas Canadians hold preferences for psychiatrists.