Gullible Gatekeepers: Improving the Legal System

• In Event: Poster Session I

Abstract

Since 2000, dozens of conventions have been held every year to help break “soft science” stereotypes, clearly define differences between types of experts, and unify those working within our courts today; nevertheless, judicial ignorance of scientific advancement and unconscious biases continue to create an unstable and unfair court system. An unfortunate history of unethical experts has created a legacy of doubt, and most legal practitioners use degrading language in court when referring to mental health expert testimony. Attorneys perpetuate the problem of “mercenary experts” when they believe the worst about mental health professionals but do not know enough to stop hiring actual mercenary experts. By analyzing transcripts from murder cases in Utah from the past 5 years and surveying students attending Utah's top law schools, we hope to find evidence that supports the following: most mental health professionals used in evidentiary hearings are not adequate forensic evaluators, attorneys and judges use disparaging language towards mental health expert witnesses, and this lack of scientific understanding begins with what they are taught in law school. Education on research and science is the only way to increase attorney self-awareness and help them serve with integrity as counsel and, maybe one day, as judges.

Authors

• Brooke Schroeder, Utah Valley University

• Daren Elmont, Utah Valley University