Current Forensic Assessment Techniques

Understanding and Appreciating Miranda Rights Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool-Criminal Adjudication (MACCAT-CA) HCR-20 for Risk Assessment Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-r) Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS)

Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights

Grisso, T. (1986) Evaluating Competencies: Forensic

Assessments and Instruments. New York: Plenum. Grisso, T. (1998) Forensic Evaluation of Juveniles. Sarasota, FL: Professional Resource Press. Grisso, T. & Schwartz, (2000) Youth on Trial: A Developmental Perspective on Juvenile Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Fulero, S. & Everington, C. (1995) Assessing competency to waive Miranda rights in defendants with mental retardation. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 533-543.

Miranda issues-continued
Meets Daubert criteria (technique is tested/verified, peer-reviewed

scrutiny, error rate, reliability, validity are known) Purpose is to quantify both the situational factors as well as suspect characteristics that are involved in custodial statements
Must have actual statement of Miranda from the jurisdiction in question Was it read or presented to client; did client sign Condition of the client at the time of arrest, i.e. substances, sleep, etc Corollary information including psych testing of cognitive capacity
Waivers must be: voluntary, knowing, and intelligent School records of educational achievement, reading level, IQ

Description of the test:

Assessment involves 4 subtests taking approximately 1 hour Comprehension of Miranda Rights Comprehension based on paraphrased description by client, vocabulary used Comprehension of Miranda Rights-Recognition Statement read by examiner with 3 paraphrased choices Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary Critical words of Miranda are to be defined by client Function of Rights in Interrogation Grasping the significance of warning re:
Nature of interrogation-jeopardy associated with interrogation Right to Counsel-the function of legal counsel Right to Silence-protections related to right to silence, jeopardy of confessions

 A systematic method of analyzing mental state at the time of the

Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales

crime This has never been done before despite very poor reliability of previous interview assessment methods
Poythress, N.G. & Petrella, R. (1983) The quality of forensic examinations: An interdisciplinary study. J. of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 76-85.
This test also meets Daubert criteria and has been developed over

20 years Takes into account the following definition of criminal responsibility

ALI includes 5 operational constructs: mental disease/defect, lack of substantial capacity, appreciation, wrongfulness, and conformity of conduct to the law The following definitions may be utilized but less data on these MNaughten includes 4 operational constructs: defect of reason, know, nature and quality of act, wrongfulness
Both have substantial cognitive requirements Guilty but Mentally Ill is also taken into account

Before the Test

Cautionary notes: 1) cannot substitute for good clinical/forensic

interview; 2) need for thorough neuropsychological assessment to appreciate cognitive behavior; 3) application of anything other ALI standard has limited data and look for updated research which is being done Careful decision about who does this evaluation, i.e. someone who has very good clinical as well as appreciation of forensic issues and who uses multiple sources of information related to thoughts, behavior, and emotions preceding and subsequent to target time period Data to provide to your examiner should include:
School records Medical and Psychiatric records/history Previous criminal history Examiner should do several comprehensive clinical interviews Specific evaluation of thoughts, behaviors, substances, and emotions, immediately preceding, during, and after the crime

Description of the Test:

30 Item guideline for the 3 Insanity decision trees The 30 items that should be answered after interviews and data

are reviewed are:

1. Reliability of patient self-report which is under his voluntary control 2. Involuntary interference with patients self-report 3. Level of intoxication at the time of the alleged crime (bearing in mind the exclusion of voluntary intoxication) 4. Evidence of brain damage or disease 5. Relationship of brain damage to the commission of the alleged crime 6. Mental Retardation 7. Relationship of mental retardation to the commission of the alleged crime 8. Observable bizarre behavior at the time of the alleged offense 9. General level of anxiety at the time of the alleged offense 10. Amnesia for the alleged crime (examiners assessment including malingering evaluation)

Description of the Test-continued

30 Items-continued 11. Delusions at the time of the crime 12. Hallucinations at the time of the crime 13. Depressed mood at the time of the alleged crime 14. Elevated or expansive mood at the time of the alleged crime 15. Patients level of verbal coherence at the time of the alleged crime 16. Intensity and appropriateness of affect during the commission of the alleged crime 17. Evidence of formal thought disorder at the time of the alleged crime 18. Planning and preparation for the alleged crime 19. Awareness of the criminality of behavior during the commission of the alleged crime 20. Focus on the alleged crime 21. Level of activity in commission of the alleged crime 22. Responsible social behavior during the week prior to the commission of the alleged crime 23. Patients reported self-control over the alleged criminal behavior

Description of the Test-continued

5 Additional assessment criteria for MNaughten and GBMI

standards
26. Impaired judgment on the basis of a mental disorder during the period of the alleged crime 27. Psychopathologically-based impairment of behavior at the time of the alleged crime 28. Impaired reality testing at the time of the alleged crime 29. Capacity for self-care of personal and home-environmental needs at the time of the alleged crime 30. Awareness of wrongfulness of the alleged criminal behavior

All responses should be justified with data and scored 1-6 based on no information (1) to most severe symptomatology (6)

MacArthur Competence Assessment ToolCriminal Adjudication

The current competency assessment tools in use have been

superceded by this instrument (Competence Assessment Instrument-CAI, 1973; Competency Screening Test-CST, 1971; Georgia Court Competency Test-GCCT, 1979; and Interdisciplinary Fitness Interview-IFI, 1984) They all quickly address rapid identification of competent client, so skewed toward government assessment None of the old tools adequately address anything but factual understanding of Dusky They do not address a clients ability to reason and assist counsel The MacCAT systematically, in a standardized, scorable fashion, addresses factual knowledge, reasoning capacity, as well as the ability to choose salient information to tell a defense attorney in preparation of a case The format includes a hypothetical case example as well as in the clients own case Meets Daubert criteria and is the result of multidisciplinary use in two cross country, multi-site, MacArthur Foundation research projects

Competence according to Dusky

Two components comprise the elements of competence (Bonnie,

1992) Competence to assist counsel

Capacity to understand charges Ability to understand the purpose of the criminal process and the adversarial nature of the process Recognition of ones own situation as the defendant Ability to work with ones attorney Ability to relate pertinent facts Decisional competence Involves cognitive ability Ability to seek out and rationally weigh information that aid in decision making

Description of the Test

Section 1: Items 1-8 assesses Understanding
Role of defense and prosecuting attorneys Elements of an offense What constitutes a lesser offense Role of the jury Role of the judge at the trial Consequences of conviction Pleading guilty What rights are waived when pleading guilty Self-defense Mitigating evidence of prosecutions evidence of intent Possible provocation in hypothetical Fear as a motivator Intoxication as mitigation

Section 2: Items 9-16 assesses Reasoning

Seeking information Weighing consequences Making comparisons

Competence Assessment description-continued

Section 3: Items 17-22 assesses Appreciation This section directly pertains to the clients own circumstances Likelihood of being treated fairly Likelihood of being assisted by their defense attorney Probability of revealing critical information to defense attorney Assessment of probability of being found guilty Likely punishment Likelihood of pleading guilty These are not just simple answers to questions as the examiner asks for the thinking behind the response Paranoid ideation is elicited if it is there Realistic or unrealistic appraisal of evidence in the case Scored on a 0, 1, 2 point basis (worst to best response)

Interpretation of Competence
The scores in each of the 3 domains is compared to one of 3

groups of criterion groups:

Criminal defendants with no mental health history in whom competence is not questioned Criminal defendants with various types of mental health disorder whose competence is not questioned Criminal defendants adjudicated incompetent to proceed as a result of mental illness

An examiner bias: record the test so that you can have a transcript of what is said

Risk Assessment and Prediction of Violence

In bold face because it is an area you must

become familiar with in capital representation! There are two tools that are currently in use, remember these names:
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Hares PCL-r) HCR-20 (Webster, Douglas, Eaves, and Hart)

Dos and Donts in Risk Assessment

Do familiarize yourself with these techniques; get a preprint

copy of Freedmans paper; make sure your expert is well-versed and familiar Problems in letting the psych expert use them in capital cases How to think about:
Origin is to address risk of violence in civil commitment and those eligible for conditional release in criminal cases (specifically MDSO) Was not designed or intended to address any question in capital cases where conditional release is never an issue Risk of violence within prison cannot be addressed by these instruments because no norms for it, limited studies of incarcerated prisoners and violence risk Want to be prepared for risk assessment issues by looking at base rate (prevalence data) of violence within prison settings using their own data (# of incidents reported)

Robert Hares Psychopathy Checklist-Revised

15+ years of research originally done in Canada on white,

young, probationers has grown into contribution to DSM-IV antisocial diagnosis Comes in various forms: the original 20 Item form, the 12 Item Screening Version, the Youth Version for 12-17 year olds, the Child Version for 5-12 year olds Consists of two factors: Factor 1-Interpersonal/Affective personality traits and Factor 2-Socially Deviant Behavior Each item is scored on a 0-not like client, 1-similar to client but not enough information to say exactly like client, 2-matches prototype The higher the score the more psychopathy the person has The dangers lie in misuse

Description of the Test:

Recommendation to get all background records re: school,

medical, criminal, probation/parole reports, work history Do extensive clinical interview paying careful attention to the interpersonal style of the interviewee and his answers to an interview that is outlined in the manual covering: school, work histories; career goals and finances; health, family of origin relationships, sex/relationships, drug use, child/adolescent and adult antisocial behavior Can perform the PCL-r without clinical interview if necessary, although an additional deception/malingering check is how the client answers vs. how background history is recorded (discrepancies) Many proponents argue that it is best to do the record review and interview then score the client on the measure

PCL-R Items
FACTOR 1 ITEMS
1. Glibness/Superficial

FACTOR 2 ITEMS
3. Need for stimulation/

Charm 2. Grandiose sense of self 4. Pathological lying 5. Conning/Manipulative 6. Lack of remorse or guilt 7. Shallow Affect 8. Callous/Lack of empathy 16. Failure to accept responsibility for behavior NO LOADING ON FACTORS 11. Promiscuous sexual behavior 17. Many short-term marital relationships 20. Criminal versatility

proneness to boredom 9. Parasitic lifestyle 10. Poor behavioral controls (re: anger control) 12. Early behavioral problems 13. Lack of realistic, long-term goals 14. Impulsivity 15. Irresponsibility 18. Juvenile delinquency 19. Revocation of conditional release

PCL-R Items-continued
NO LOADING ON EITHER FACTOR 11. Promiscuous sexual behavior 17. Many short-term marital relationships

20. Criminal versatility

HCR-20
HCR-20 is a 20 item organizational scheme for collecting

(H)istory, (C)linical, (R)isk Management data on the client The manual states it is an experimental, research tool (pgs. vi and 5) This instrument and the PCL-R are frequently used together to construct an actuarial prediction dataset that has been shown to be slightly predictive in the research literature However, the use of a research instrument does not meet Daubert

Test Description: The item organization

Historical Items 1. Previous violence 2. Young age at 1st violent incident 3. Relationship instability 4. Employment problems 5. Substance use problems 6. Major mental illness 7. Psychopathy (PCL-R score) 8. Early maladjustment 9. Personality disorder 10. Prior supervision failure Risk Management Items 1. Plans lack feasibility 2. Exposure to destabilizers 3. Lack of Personal Support 4. Noncompliance with remediation attempts 5. Stress

Clinical Items
1. Lack of insight 2. Negative attitudes 3. Active symptoms of mental illness 4. Impulsivity 5. Unresponsive to treatment

These Risk items are often used to provide context to the appearance of violent acts

How would your client score?

You should be aware of this every time a mental health professional looks at your client: Be prepared!