As one strategy, psychologists are appealing court decisions that throw out psychologists? testimony. For example, APA has filed amicus curiae briefs in the Supreme Courts of North Carolina, Colorado and Missouri, challenging court rulings that deem neuropsychologists unqualified to testify about the cause of brain injuries. In those cases, judges ruled that only physicians can testify to the cause of a plaintiff?s brain damage in personal injury cases. APA counters that neuropsychology is a sound and accepted science, and that neuropsychologists are indeed qualified to give expert testimony in such cases.

Also, the Maryland State Psychological Association (MPA) was able to counteract a ruling that said only physicians can conduct court-ordered mental and physical examinations. The state appeals court based its decision on a narrow interpretation of an existing rule. That rule stated that court-ordered examinations must be conducted by physicians, but historically state judges had considered that to include other health professionals.

MPA worked with the state?s Judicial Rules Committee, a panel of judges, to amend the Maryland rule to allow ?suitably licensed or certified examiners? to also conduct the evaluations. The Maryland Court of Appeals approved the change in July.

APA is also working more closely with the American Bar Association (ABA) to give judges more resources when they?re faced with cases involving psychological issues. For example, APA members are helping the ABA develop a benchbook on psychiatric and psychological evidence for state courts. The book will provide state trial and appellate judges with a comprehensive, concise guide on the admissibility, assessment and use of such testimony.

And psychologists are becoming increasingly active in educating judges about psychological issues that come up in legal proceedings. Robert Geffner, PhD, a San Diego psychologist and expert on family violence, teaches a course at the National Judicial College, which offers continuing-education courses around the country for adjudicators. He teaches judges about the psychological dynamics of domestic violence and child abuse, such as common characteristics of offenders and victims. The curriculum is designed to help them render appropriate sentences, and to handle expert witnesses appropriately, he explains. Each state has its own judicial education center as well, many of which include psychology curriculum, Geffner says.

?Scott Sleek