Testimony is the information or solemn statements that a witness or an expert gives to the court. Testimony can be in oral or written form, and it is considered a kind of evidence. The credibility of the testimony depends on its comprehensiveness, cohesiveness, truthfulness, and accuracy. Statements of opinion or assumptions are not admitted in a court of law or used as reliable evidence, except for particular circumstances such as the report of account of expert witnesses. Before giving testimony, the witness or expert is sworn under oath; therefore, giving false testimony would be committing the crime of perjury. This paper examines the expert evidence given by Dr. Dan Rodgers, a Fort Dodge forensic psychologist, Dr. Michael Taylor and medical doctor who has specialized in psychiatry, and Terry Allen Burns, a nurse at Cerro Gordo County Jail where Mark Becker was put under custody since June 24th, 2009. Mark Becker was a twenty-four-year-old young man accused of murder after shooting Aplington-Parkersburg head football coach Ed Thomas in front of the kids Thomas was training. However, the court is not specified whether the suspect in the shooting, Mark Becker, understands the charges he faces and if he assists in his defense. The paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of evidence provided to the court by the three experts mentioned above who try to testify from a professional background, the competency level of hearing of Mark Becker. It is noted that expert evidence is reliable because it is based on proven facts; testimony also shed more light by giving detailed information. It is also observed that such detailed and dependable information affects the final decision of the court. On the other hand, inaccuracies, nervousness, and erroneous recording of information may render the evidence null and void, or worse still it can be used to convict a person mistakenly.
Expert evidence, as observed in the presentation of Dr. Dan Rodgers, Dr. Michael Taylor and nurse Terry Allen Burns can shed more light into the competency level of hearing of the murder suspect. It helps the jury and lawyers with a better understanding of the mental status of the defendant and determines whether he should stand trial or not. Dr. Dan Rodgers carries out several tests to evaluate the mental standards of Mark Becker. For example, from the intelligence test that Dr. Dan Rodgers conducted, the court was informed that Mark Becker level of intelligence skills was average and he had some difficulties in thinking quickly. Dr. Dan Rodgers also provided the court with Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) report. According to the expert, MMPI is a psychological test that evaluates psychopathology and personality traits, and it is primarily intended to test Mark Becker to determine if he has mental health sickness or other clinical issues. From the MMPI test, the court was informed that the suspect tried to look as usual he could be trying to hide the fact that he was suffering from delusions. Dr. Rodgers further reveals that Becker could be experiencing some paranoid disorders, which could have resulted from abuse of drugs. Rogers says six months to a year of treatment might leave Becker better able to understand the charges. Dr. Rodgers responses were quick and straight to the point. He responded to every question with much precision. There were two instances he was asked about the amount of time he spent evaluating Becker, and he responded by giving the same figures for both questions. The forensic psychologist maintained a direct eye contact with his interviewers as he made his presentation. This was a comprehensive and cohesive expert evidence that could help the judge come up with the best decision in the end.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, expert evidence is reliable when carried out by the set-up standards and it can help investigators and the judge to take the best course of action. The evidence provided by Dr. Dan Rodgers and Dr. Michael Taylor to the court was of high quality and meets the set standards. Dr. Dan Rodgers, being an expert in forensic psychology and having handled three hundred and ninety-seven similar cases is fit and experienced enough to handle Mark Becker's situation and provide the court with precise, coherent and reliable evidence. Dr. Dan Rodgers elaborates all the methods and procedure that was followed while examining the suspect. According to the Dr. Dan Rodgers, the standards for competency or incompetency depends on the ability to process questions, ability to communicate with the attorney, ability to trust attorney, and ability to report. Besides, it depends on the ability to listen to people and talk, perception accuracy, the accuracy of memory, peculiar thinking, delusional thinking and effects of medication to the patient under evaluation. The evidence provided by Dr. Dan Rodgers reveals that Mark Becker had difficulties in thinking quickly despite responding with proper answers to question from the forensic psychologist. He also discloses to the court that the suspect was working so hard to look good, but indeed, he was suffering from some psychological problems that warrant immediate treatment before he is competent enough to stand trial. Dr. Dan's evaluation supported is by Dr. Taylor who believes that Becker had suffered from hearing voices or perhaps having delusions in the past. However, the psychiatrist says proper medication appears to have those symptoms under control. Both expert present to the court in a clear and simplified language and respondent to every question instantaneously. The prosecution expert witness also said whatever delusion Becker might have suffered did not appear to involve the legal system, so in his view, Becker was competent to stand trial. Dr. Dan Rodgers and Dr. Michael Taylor present their opinion, which relies on the results of the use of standardized tests and their opinion take a proper account of matters with utmost precision and consistency.
It is also noted that expert evidence has a significant effect on the determination of the court. In some cases, the court tries to ensure that an expert's evidence would assist the court and that an expert is formally qualified and has sufficient experience. The court is also interested in knowing the specific field that an expert comes from. In this case, there is Dr. Dan Rodgers, Dr. Michael Taylor and nurse Terry Allen Burns, a forensic psychologist, a psychiatrist and a nurse respectively. Their presentation during their introductory remarks indicates that these three experts are qualified, experienced and competent enough to furnish the court with sufficient information that will help the judge to make the final decision. Despite the fact that the appropriateness of expert psychological testimony has been addressed on moral and legal grounds, the need to have experts for this particular case is inevitable. On the stand, Dr. Taylor confidently describes Becker as a relaxed, calm and well-spoken man with no indication in his appearance or behavior of paranoid delusions. On the other hand, the Cerro Gordo County jail nurse Terry Allen Burns outlines the medication she administered to the patient. In her submission, she states that at some point, she increased the Invega dosage from nine milligrams to twelve milligrams every take with the purpose of treating schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder to improve thinking, mood, and behavior. This evidence of treatment was documented, and it enabled the court to understand that, indeed, the suspect had abnormal moods and psychosis and he was undergoing treatment. In addition, the evidence provided by Dr. Michael Taylor was vital to the final determination of the court. Dr. Taylor told the court that Mark Becker had received sufficient medical attention and was competent to stand trial. He explains to the judge that the suspect understood the charges that had been leveled against him and was aware what police were saying what he did.
However, there are instances where the evidence provided before the court is inaccurate and erroneously recorded. Inappropriate expert testimony is not an isolated issue originating from some analysts. There are cases where prosecution's forensic analysts provide invalid evidence with conclusions that misstated empirical data or was utterly unsupported by empirical data. Some forensic disciplines involve subjective analysis not based on empirical population data. For instance, on the subject of microscopic hair comparison, there is inadequate empirical data that exist about the frequency of microscopic characteristics of human hairs (Greene and Wrightsman, 2007). Dr. Michael Taylor admits that he did not record his interview with Mark Becker. He describes the appearance and behavior of the suspect without providing any physical evidence using an audio or video recording. Lack of concrete evidence means that Dr. Michael Taylor relied on his memory, which sometimes is characterized by inaccuracies and errors. Besides, Dr. Michael Taylor admits that he does not know the duration taken while interviewing the suspect. When pressed harder; he tries to approximate that he might have taken between one and two hours. Lack of exact time taken for the evaluation raises more questions in the court because, without recording time, it is hard to know how much money he was to be paid.
Expert's evidence can also lead to a conviction of a wrong person. The evidence provided by experts is regarded with the utmost attention, with their scientific opinion being exempt from the prohibition on opinion evidence in a courtroom. However, some mistakes, whether deliberate or not, may not be seen in the evidence for some time. These errors or incorrect testimony presented to the court by an expert witness can have severe consequences for parties, specifically in the criminal sphere. The scientifically incorrect and unsound expert evidence can have a disastrous impact on the liberty of the defendant and the overall outcome of the case (Skelton, 2010). In Mark Becker's case, where three experts present before the jury their findings to prove whether the suspect is competent or incompetent to stand trial, the credibility and accuracy of the evidence is vital to avoid litigation of a mentally incapable person or free a criminal. According to Dr. Dan, he has performed fifty-five competency evaluation tests on murder suspects, and out of this number, twenty six percent have proven to be incompetent, sixty-six were competent and the rest were unknown. The presentation from Dr. Dan Rodgers tries to convince the jury to allow more time for treatment of Mark Becker before he stands trial. According to this experienced psychologist, approximately six months or a year would help. On the other hand, Dr. Michael Taylor, and experienced psychiatrist with more than three decades of forensic psychiatry recommends that the suspect is fit enough to stand trial. Dr. Michael Taylor believes that the defendant has undergone sufficient and appropriate medical care and there is no tangible reason why the court should wait further. This situation puts the court in a difficult position which requires detailed assessment from both sides.
In conclusion, an expert witness is a vital and integral element in legal battles because he or she aids in the efficient operation of our legal system. However, legal teams should be on high alert to identify any potential expert evidence that can be catastrophic to either of the involved parties. The jury must ensure that the concerned experts are well aware and abide by the Expert witness Code of Conduct to eliminate any potential errors or blunders.
References
Greene, E., & Wrightsman, L. S. (2007). Wrightsman's psychology and the legal system. Belmont, CA: Thomson/ Wadsworth.
Skelton, R. R. (2010). A survey of the forensic sciences. Raleigh, N.C.: Lulu.
