The expert witness, the adversary system, and the voice of reason: Reconciling impartiality and advocacy.

Abstract

The legal system and the profession of psychology have differing expectations that cause psychologists who serve as expert witnesses to face fundamental conflicts. The rules of evidence demand that experts assist the trier of fact, the adversary system demands that experts serve the parties who retain them, and the ethical codes and guidelines demand that experts impartially assist the court, only in their area of competence. Psychological experts are left to sort out the competing demands, as well as their potential liability, while recognizing the importance of being persuasive. This article addresses the competing tensions expert witnesses face and offers an approach to reconciling these tensions that relies on competence, relevance, perspective, balance, and candor.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 60 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.