NCJ Number
113158
Journal
Journal of Forensic Sciences Volume: 33 Issue: 4 Dated: (July 1988) Pages: 1008-1014
Date Published
1988
Length
7 pages
Annotation
Although in New York State the battle to keep lawyers out of the consulting room during court ordered or statutorily required criminal forensic, tort, family-law, and civil commitment examinations has been lost, psychiatrists must continue to insist that when attorneys are present at examinations, they act only as observers.
Abstract
The overriding principle justifying New York court decisions in favor of the presence of counsel at court-ordered psychiatric examinations has been preservation of the principles of the adversarial system under which the courts operate. Enhancing the value of the cross-examination of the expert witness is cited most often as the rationale for the decisions in these cases. In some cases, the courts have interpreted statutes guaranteeing the right to counsel in the broadest sense to mean representation at every stage of litigation, including the psychiatric examination. This should not mean, however, that counsel may act adversarially in the context of psychiatric examinations. This would turn the psychiatric interview into a courtroom without benefit of an impartial judge. Counsel should be restricted to the role of an observer in psychiatric examinations. 28 references.