CROSS EXAMINATION OF DIRECT TESTIMONY 1

Re-Direct Testimony

PSY 8360

Current Issues and Trends in Forensic Psychology

Re-Direct Testimony

Cross Examination Questions

CROSS EXAMINATION OF DIRECT TESTIMONY 2

1. Dr. Bowie, is it correct that you were the psychologist in charge of conducting a

psychological assessment on Mr. Smith?

Response: Yes that is correct.

Explanation: For this particular question there is no way to combat the cross examiner, this

question is very straight forward and serves as a clarifying statement for the trier of fact. Of

course there is always the option of being sarcastic and replying with;

“ Yes, Mr. Jones, as I and the rest of court are aware from my earlier direct testimony, I am in

fact the psychologist in charge of conducting the psychological assessment on Mr. Smith.”

Also it should be noted that most cross examiners will push to the next question right after I have

provided the answer that they wanted to hear.

2. If im not mistaken, you do not have a clinical license, am I correct?

Response: As a Forensic Psychologist you do not need to be clinically licensed, however

I have obtained the highest degree possible in the field of Forensic Psychology along with being

board certified

Explanation: This question is technically an attack on my credentials, as I am not a clinical

psychologist the cross examiner is attempting to discredit my earlier testimony. The way that the

cross examiner framed this question it leaves room for an explanation. During the direct

testimony, my credentials were stated and the court room is aware that I do not have a clinical

license, by reiterating the fact that I have obtained the highest degree in the field it solidifies the
CROSS EXAMINATION OF DIRECT TESTIMONY 3

notion that I am fully capable of making a diagnosis based on not on my experience but because

of my credentials as well.

3. How many cases have you served as an expert witness?

Response: Officially I have served as an expert witness three times however I have

conducted multiple psychological tests on defendants in the 5 years that I have been licensed.

Explanation: Although I have only been an expert witness a total of three times, by clarifying

that I have a history with psychological test it reiterates the fact that I am and was fully capable

of being the psychologist assigned to test and provide an expert opinion on Mr. Smith’s mental

state at the time of the offense.

4. So regarding Mr. Smith mental state at the time of the incident, I see that he was not

drug tested prior, you all never ruled out drug induced psychosis did you?

Response: Unfortunately I do not have precedent over hospital policy, and as I was

assigned to this case after the incident took place it was not my responsibility to drug test Mr.

Smith. My job is to shed light on the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense and I do

that by way of psychological assessment, collateral information, medical history and more.

Explanation: The cross examiner makes the mistake of mixing up the duties of the forensic

psychologist and the hospital. There is no way that I can answer this question as I am not a part

of the hospital staff who admitted the defendant. By responding this way I not only clarify what

my duties were in regards to this particular case but I also summarize my methodology.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF DIRECT TESTIMONY 4

5. In the Direct testimony you stated that you used the Miller Forensic Assessment of

Symptoms test, Wide range achievement test, and the Minnesota multiphasic

personality inventory is that correct?

Response: Yes, each one tests for a specific aspect or trait of the individual, for example

the Miller Forensic Assessment helps assess the likelihood that the defendant was feigning his

illness, the Wide range test helps us identify whether or not the defendant has any learning

disabilities and the Minnesota Multiphasic personality inventory assesses personality traits and

psychopathology of people who are suspected of having mental disorders.

Explanation: This is another clarifying statement from the cross examiner that sets up the next

question. The only response that can be given is either a yes or no answer or I can explain each

test as a general overview of what the test were that were chosen. This answer not only confirms

the specific test that were chosen but it also aims to help the trier of fact understand or rather

begin to understand why the test are relevant to the case.

6. Given that Mr. Smith was misdiagnosed multiple times prior to this incident, Is the

combination of these tests fairly common in your area of expertise?

Response: There is not a common combination of any psychological test, each test are

chosen to benefit the person taking them. These specific tests were chosen because they best fit

the defendants history as noted in my forensic report.

Explanation: In the direct testimony I explained the methodology that was conducted for this

particular assessment as well as providing the reason and the findings of the psychological test.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF DIRECT TESTIMONY 5

This question aims to discredit my earlier statements by questioning whether or not the test that

were chosen fit Mr, Smith’s case. It was stated in my earlier testimony that the purpose of using

these assessments were to be able to determine the extent of the defendants malingering in regards to his

symptoms keeping in mind that he had an reading level that was comparable to an 8 th or 9th grader.

7. Isn’t it true that In your report you stated that the resulting clinical protocol is

invalid because of excessive malingering and Mr. Smith’s uncooperative test-taking

approach?

Response: Mr. Smith exhibited obvious signs of malingering throughout the entirety of

his psychological exam which is why it was considered invalid, however that should not take

away from his other diagnosis. Mr. Smith had been diagnosed with Schizophrenia well before

this incident took place, and he had previously had hallucinations as noted in his record. Based

on the collateral information that was obtained Mr. Smith showed genuine distress and fear when

the incident happened. One has to look at the complete picture that is presented to us, if I were to

only look at one aspect of the forensic exam, as you are now, I would not in good conscious be

able to render an opinion on Mr. Smith. Although the tests were invalid they were not what

solidified my opinion on Mr. Smith state of mind at the time of the offense, it was a collection of

the information that was gathered for this forensic report.

Explanation: By bringing up the invalid test results the cross examiner attempts to discredit the

forensic report in its entirety, for those who are not familiar with the contents of a forensic report

they may think that if the results are invalid then the report is as well. By reiterating the fact that

I used multiple aspects of the report to affirm my opinion on Mr. Smith I can set the jury’s mind

at ease.
CROSS EXAMINATION OF DIRECT TESTIMONY 6

8. Because you are basing your opinion of whether or not Mr. Smith was sane at the

time of the event, based on invalid test results, you aren’t 100% sure of your opinion

are you?

Response: The test serves as an aid in the diagnosis, it cannot be used by itself

alone. My opinion is based off of the complete information that was collected both at the

time of the incident as well as the defendants history. So based on test results alone no I

am not 100% sure of a diagnosis however based on the methodology reported in the

Forensic report it is my complete opinion that Mr. Smith was not sane at the time of the

incident.

Explanation: This was the ultimate discredit question that the cross examiner was

working up to, if I had not been prepared or if I could not accurately describe the results

which were presented in my forensic report than he/she would have had a good chance to

discredit my testimony. However as I mentioned in the response that the test work in

conjunction with the rest of the methodology when forming an opinion one cannot just

assume that I am not sure of my opinion based off of a part of the methodology.