Forensic neuropsychology: History and current status

Attorney demands for protected psychological test information: Is access necessary for cross examination or does it lead to misinformation? An interorganizational* position paper

Objective: Some attorneys claim that to adequately cross examine neuropsychological experts, they require direct access to protected test information, rather than having test data analyzed by retained neuropsychological experts. The objective of this paper is to critically examine whether direct access to protected test materials by attorneys is indeed necessary, appropriate, and useful to the trier-of-fact. Method: Examples are provided of the types of nonscientific misinformation that occur when attorneys, who lack adequate training in testing, attempt to independently interpret neurocognitive/psychological test data. Results: Release of protected test information to attorneys introduces inaccurate information to the trier of fact, and jeopardizes future use of tests because non-psychologists are not ethically bound to protect test content. Conclusion: The public policy underlying the right of attorneys to seek possibly relevant documents should not outweigh the damage to tests and resultant misinformation that arise when protected test information is released directly to attorneys. The solution recommended by neuropsychological/psychological organizations and test publishers is to have protected psychological test information exchanged directly and only between clinical psychologist/neuropsychologist experts.

Forensic neuropsychological assessment

With its firm establishment as a neuropsychology subspecialty, forensic neuropsychological assessment is integral to many criminal and civil forensic evaluations. In addition to evaluating cognitive deficits, forensic neuropsychologists can provide reliable information regarding symptom magnification, malingering, and other neurocognitive and psychological issues that may impact the outcome of a particular legal case. This article is an overview and introduction to neuropsychological assessment in the forensic mental health context. Major issues impacting the current practice of forensic neuropsychology are summarized, and several examples from case law are highlighted.

Forensic neurology: a distinct subspecialty at the intersection of neurology, neuroscience and law

Neurological evidence is increasingly used in criminal cases to argue that a defendant is less responsible for their behaviour, is not competent to stand trial or should receive a reduced punishment for the crime. Unfortunately, neurologists are rarely involved in such cases despite having the expertise to help to inform these decisions in court. In this Perspective, we advocate for the development of 'forensic neurology', a subspecialty of neurology focused on using neurological clinical and scientific expertise to address legal questions for the criminal justice system. We review literature suggesting that the incidence of criminal behaviour is higher in people with certain neurological disorders than the general public and that undiagnosed neurological abnormalities are common in people who commit crimes. We discuss the need for forensic neurologists in criminal cases to provide an opinion on what neurological diagnoses are present, the resulting symptoms and ultimately whether the symptoms affect legal determinations such as criminal responsibility or competency.