Research in field reliability

Last Wednesday, I talked to Dr. Correa about some of the research that I had come across regarding the validity of expert witness testimony and the field reliability. It was interesting to recognize that risk assessment and dangerousness evaluations are often varied and the findings of professionals are not always consistent. As my mentor explained to me, this is mainly because there is not an objective, empirical testing strategy for assessing future behavior. In addition to discussing this fault in the forensic practice, we also discussed her expert testimony she had on the Monday before our meeting. The case was on the defendant’s competency to stand trial, and the judge was out of state, so the testimony took place over skype. She told me about the judge’s lack of experience in working with adjunctive competency, and how she had to explain the legal standards and practical procedure in her experience. This at first came to a surprise, but we talked about how there are so many legal standards and court procedures that judges have to manage, and trial competency is not very common for the average judge.

As I leave the fourth six weeks and enter the fifth grading period, I need to reflect on my progress in ISM, specifically this semester. So far, I have been visiting my mentor weekly, keeping her up to date on my interests and learning process.