Ethical Considerations for Demands for Evidence in Forensic Examinations

  • Richard I. Frederick
  • , James W. Mikesell
  • , Randy K. Otto
  • , Kyle Brauer Boone
  • , Robert A. Beattey
  • , Jerry J. Sweet
  • , Daniel A. Krauss
  • , Joe Scroppo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Due process of law involves matters of fundamental fairness to litigants in civil and criminal proceedings. Due process rights include the opportunity to develop, obtain, inspect, present, and challenge evidence in legal proceedings. Psychologists’ opinions often depend upon information that is sensitive and should not be publicly disclosed in a manner that would undercut the utility of psychological tests. There have been strident discussion and policy statements opposing nonpsychologists’ access to sensitive test information by providing them with copies of test materials or by video recording examinations that include psychological tests. Notably absent from these statements has been any discussion of the legal system’s demand for due process and its corresponding requirement for access to facts and data, including opinion testimony of experts. We argue that the Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology are congruent with due process requirements for reasonable judicial scrutiny and adequate discovery by all parties, and we believe that a judge’s protective order is an acceptable remedy for the disclosure of sensitive test information in a litigated matter.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)179-196
Number of pages18
JournalProfessional Psychology: Research and Practice
Volume55
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 2024

Bibliographical note

Publisher Copyright:
© 2024 American Psychological Association

[Clarification Notice: A clarification for this article was reported online in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice on Oct 31 2024 (see record 2025-41446-001). The article “Ethical Considerations for Demands for Evidence in Forensic Examinations,” by Richard I. Frederick, James W. Mikesell, Randy K. Otto, Kyle Brauer Boone, Robert A. Beattey Jr., Jerry J. Sweet, Daniel A. Krauss, and Joe Scroppo (Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2024, Vol. 55, No. 3, pp. 179–196, https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000581), presents multiple viewpoints regarding the potential conflict between due process rights and efforts to protect sensitive information associated with forensic assessment. The first section by Frederick, Mikesell, & Otto is followed by other viewpoints on this issue by Boone, Beattey, & Sweet; Krasuss; and Scroppo. The original abstract in the online publication of the manuscript has been replaced to clarify that the viewpoints following the article are not consistent with those expressed in the article by Frederick et al. Although all authors’ names are associated with the title of this Ethics in Motion section manuscript, Ethics in Motion is a collection of different viewpoints by authors with varied perspectives, and these authors have requested this be clearly noted to the readership.] Ethics in Motion articles present complex issues with multiple, often divergent perspectives regarding important ethical issues in psychology. The current collection, Ethical Considerations for Demands for Evidence in Forensic Examinations, represents multiple viewpoints regarding the potential conflict between due process rights and efforts to protect sensitive information associated with forensic assessment. The first manuscript by Frederick et al. (2024) is followed by other viewpoints on this issue by Boone, Beattey, & Sweet; Krauss; and Scroppo. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

ASJC Scopus Subject Areas

  • General Psychology

Keywords

  • due process
  • ethics
  • forensic psychology
  • psychological tests
  • test security

Disciplines

  • Psychology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Ethical Considerations for Demands for Evidence in Forensic Examinations'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this