Based in the landmark case, Dusky v. United States, 362, U.S. 402 (1960), the standard for competence to stand trial (CST) is “whether the accused has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and whether he/she has a rational as well as a factual understanding of the proceedings against him/her.” CST evaluations typically require the use of forensic assessment instruments specifically designed to assess decisional and adjudicative competence as well as the ability to assist counsel. Typical instruments utilized include the FIT-R, R-CAI, ILK, and MacCAT-CA, to name a few. The evaluation may also require psychological testing and/or malingering assessment.

The California criteria for an individual to plead Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) is rooted in the M’Naghten standard. This affirmative defense requires defendants show that “by reason of mental disease or defect,” they were “incapable of knowing the nature of his or her act, understanding the nature of his or her act, and/or distinguishing between right and wrong at the time of commission of the crime.” As this is a retroactive evaluation, the process typically requires consultation with the defense attorney, various collateral interviews, a forensic interview, a review of current and historical records, and possible malingering and/or psychological testing to assess the relevant psycho-legalistic concepts.

Violence risk assessments aim to assess an individual’s risk potential for future violence, treatment needs, and rehabilitation potential. Such assessments are often used for sentencing hearings and the evaluation of offenders with mental disorder (OMD), individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI), or sexually violent predators (SVPs). A typical violence risk assessment involves obtaining an extensive psychosocial history through a comprehensive forensic interview and record review, as well as the use of forensic assessment instruments specifically designed to assess risk for violence or sexual recidivism such as the HCR-20 v.3, Static-99R, and the Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R), to name a few.

Pre-Employment evaluations are conducted to ensure prospective candidates are psychologically suited for their prospective job. Similarly, Post-Hire Evaluations are conducted to assess current employees who may be exhibiting behavior suggestive of impaired mental health or cognitive functioning, therefore raising concern for workplace violence, physically hazardous work habits, public safety concerns, etc. Both evaluations are designed to ensure an individual is not experiencing an emotional or mental condition that may adversely impact performance in the workplace. Fitness for Duty Evaluations typically include a forensic interview and record review, psychological testing, violence risk assessment, and communication with collateral contacts.

Malingering assessment is a crucial component of any type of forensic evaluation to assess the possible exaggeration and/or feigning of symptoms of mental illness for secondary gain. It is imperative to assess the validity of a defendant’s reported psychiatric symptoms or cognitive impairments. While malingering assessment is often incorporated into a forensic evaluation, there may be need to conduct a free-standing evaluation to assist attorneys in the evaluation of a client’s mental illness. This evaluation typically includes a comprehensive clinical interview, through record review, interview with collateral sources (when indicated), and the use of specialized malingering measures. 

We can assist attorneys in analyzing complex mental health cases, identifying a client’s mental health concerns that may warrant further investigation, reviewing and analyzing psychological or forensic reports from other experts to provide helpful recommendations, and/or developing questions for cross-examination of an adverse witness.

Forensic psychology expert witnesses conduct forensic evaluations and write reports regarding an individual’s behavior, functional abilities, future risk to self or others, treatment recommendations, and rehabilitation potential. Areas of expert testimony can include the provision of information regarding severe mental disorders, substance use and addiction, cognitive functioning, and a variety of psycho-legal issues such as competency-related abilities, criminal culpability, violence risk, and other highly complex questions.