Competence to stand trial evaluations (CST) are the most commonly conducted forensic mental health assessment (FMHA). Thus, it is crucial to examine components of CST evaluations under the guidelines of best practices. CST evaluations typically result in a written report, and prior research has indicated that these reports are highly influential to judges presiding over CST hearings. After Heilbrun (2001) published 29 principles of FMHA, Heilbrun et al. (2009) published an expanded list of 38 principles of FMHA that are meant to steer forensic evaluators through the process of FMHA and provide best practice guidelines. This study aims examined the impact that Heilbrun's principles of FMHA have on judges' perceptions of CST reports. The participants were split into three groups, one group receiving a high principle adherence report, one group receiving a moderate principle adherence report, and one receiving a low principle adherence report. The judges then rated the quality of the reports. The results demonstrated that there was no significant relationship between the level of adherence to the principles of FMHA and judges' perceptions of the quality of the report. Findings indicate that judicial decision makers do not hold forensic mental health reports to the same standards that psychologists do.

Presenting state-of-the-art research, this Handbook summarises emerging and establishing topics in the area of legal decision-making. Interdisciplinary in its approach, it covers decisions made within the criminal justice system, the trial process, and clinical settings. Chapters, written by accomplished academics and experts in the field, synthesize historical context, identify gaps in existing literature, propose future directions of study, and discuss policy limitations. It also includes 'perspectives from the field' essays written by professionals - a judge, an attorney, a police officer, a trial consultant, and a probation officer - to bridge the gap between academic research and its application to the real world. It is intended as a go-to resource for students and researchers who want to immerse themselves in a body of scientific research to understand its history and shape its future.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

This edited volume examines the very essence of the function of judges, building upon developments in the quality of justice research throughout Europe. Distinguished authors address a gap in the literature by considering the standards that individual judgments should meet, presenting both academic and practical perspectives. Readers are invited to consider such questions as: What is expected from judicial reasoning? Is there a general concept of good quality with regard to judicial reasoning? Are there any attempts being made to measure the quality of judicial reasoning? The focus here is on judges meeting the highest standards possible in adjudication and how they may be held to account for the way they reason. The contributions examine theoretical questions surrounding the measurement of the quality of judicial reasoning, practices and legal systems across Europe, and judicial reasoning in various international courts. Six legal systems in Europe are featured: England and Wales, Finland, Italy, the Czech Republic, France and Hungary as well as three non-domestic levels of court jurisdictions, including the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The depth and breadth of subject matter presented in this volume ensure its relevance for many years to come. All those with an interest in benchmarking the quality of judicial reasoning, including judges themselves, academics, students and legal practitioners, can find something of value in this book.

Evaluations of a defendant's competence to stand trial (CST) are probably the most frequently performed forensic evaluations, with estimates in the United States ranging from 60,000 to 70,000 annually. In order for CST evaluations to be considered thorough and accurate, examiners must assess for possible lack of cooperation, feigning, or malingering - the intentional production or gross exaggeration of false or grossly exaggerated physical or psychiatric symptoms, motivated by external incentives. Yet, there are accounts that CST examiners often do not assess for negative response bias, and even if they do nevertheless fail to identify a considerable number of examinees that do feign. Assessing Negative Response Bias in Competency to Stand Trial Evaluations provides readers with a comprehensive guide to assessing whether a defendant has feigned mental impairment during a competency to stand trial evaluation, or simply did not put forth his/her best effort. This book reviews the literature on assessing feigning and negative response bias, with particular focus on issues, tests, and data relevant to CST evaluations, and examines proposed criteria and statistical methods of determining and classifying assessment results. It introduces readers to aspects of the vibrant neuropsychological response style literature, an area many forensic psychologists appear to have overlooked. Additionally, it offers recommendations for research and policy regarding the parameters of CST assessment.