From clareau@prodigy.net Thu Apr 8 09:33:54 2004 Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.33.7]) by lists.u.washington.edu (8.12.11+UW04.02/8.12.11+UW04.03) with ESMTP id i38GXrLo025662 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:33:53 -0700 Received: from web80205.mail.yahoo.com (web80205.mail.yahoo.com [66.218.79.40]) by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.12.11+UW04.02/8.12.11+UW04.03) with SMTP id i38GXqpF020731 for ; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:33:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20040408163352.576.qmail@web80205.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [158.96.58.5] by web80205.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 09:33:52 PDT Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2004 09:33:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Craig R. Lareau, JD, PhD" Subject: RE: [FG] Distilling the treating v. evaluating debate - response to Bryan Smith To: forensicguidelines@u.washington.edu In-Reply-To: <002001c41d6b$3cc9f0b0$0400a8c0@Bob> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0-1045456674-1081442032=:521" X-Uwash-Spam: Gauge=IIIIIIIII, Probability=9%, Report='HTML_FONT_COLOR_UNSAFE 0.373, SUPERLONG_LINE 0.003, HTML_FONT_COLOR_MAGENTA 0.001, __TO_MALFORMED_2 0, __IN_REP_TO 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART_ALT 0, __EVITE_CTYPE 0, __CT 0, __CTYPE_HAS_BOUNDARY 0, __CTYPE_MULTIPART 0, EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION 0, __MSGID_BEFORE_OKAY 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __TAG_EXISTS_META 0, __MIME_HTML 0, HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE 0.000, __SANE_MSGID 0, __RATWARE_SIGNATURE_3_N1 0, IN_REP_TO 0' --0-1045456674-1081442032=:521 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Robert Erard wrote: I believe that our job extends a bit beyond just answering the questions posed to us. We are there to offer our honest professional opinions and that includes making reasonable efforts to correct mischaracterizations and distortions of our views. I disagree that we are there "to offer our honest professional opinions and that includes making reasonable efforts to correct mischaracterizations and distortions of our views." We are there to honestly answer the questions we are asked. It is through honestly answering the questions that we offer our "honest professional opinions." If through manipulation or lack of understanding our responses are mischaracterized, we correct those misunderstandings by honestly answering more questions, if asked. We are there because either the court or one of the attorneys representing one of the parties believes that we have specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue. The attorneys, through direct and cross-examination, determine the scope of information we will present to the trier of fact through their questions. I hope you are not asserting that we can talk about anything that we want, when we want, when on the stand. We still must answer relevantly, which means we have to answer the questions asked. If we are asked an open-ended question, the honest answer to which provides us the opportunity to correct mischaracterizations or distortions, then we are still answering questions honestly. If we are asked about different things, we can't just talk about the things we want to. (Of course, nothing prevents us from speaking to the attorney who called us during a break and informing the attorney about a mischaracterization that we wish to correct, but we correct it through honestly answering more questions.) Certainly you cannot believe that if you are dealt a particularly destructive cross-examination which almost entirely mischaracterizes your opinions, and for some reason the attorney that called you decides to forego re-direct, that you then have some super-legal right to directly address the jury in the form of a narrative to "correct mischaracterizations and distortions of our views." Craig Lareau Craig R. Lareau, J.D., Ph.D., A.B.P.P. Diplomate in Forensic Psychology American Board of Professional Psychology (626) 444-8604 (626) 298-0417 cell (626) 444-8604 fax clareau@prodigy.net --0-1045456674-1081442032=:521 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Robert Erard <rerard2000@ameritech.net> wrote:

I believe that our job extends a bit beyond just answering the questions posed to us.  We are there to offer our honest professional opinions and that includes making reasonable efforts to correct mischaracterizations and distortions of our views.

I disagree that we are there "to offer our honest professional opinions and that includes making reasonable efforts to correct mischaracterizations and distortions of our views."  We are there to honestly answer the questions we are asked.  It is through honestly answering the questions that we offer our "honest professional opinions."  If through manipulation or lack of understanding our responses are mischaracterized, we correct those misunderstandings by honestly answering more questions, if asked.
 
We are there because either the court or one of the attorneys representing one of the parties believes that we have specialized knowledge that will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.  The attorneys, through direct and cross-examination, determine the scope of information we will present to the trier of fact through their questions.
 
I hope you are not asserting that we can talk about anything that we want, when we want, when on the stand.  We still must answer relevantly, which means we have to answer the questions asked.  If we are asked an open-ended question, the honest answer to which provides us the opportunity to correct mischaracterizations or distortions, then we are still answering questions honestly.  If we are asked about different things, we can't just talk about the things we want to.  (Of course, nothing prevents us from speaking to the attorney who called us during a break and informing the attorney about a mischaracterization that we wish to correct, but we correct it through honestly answering more questions.)
 
Certainly you cannot believe that if you are dealt a particularly destructive cross-examination which almost entirely mischaracterizes your opinions, and for some reason the attorney that called you decides to forego re-direct, that you then have some super-legal right to directly address the jury in the form of a narrative to "correct mischaracterizations and distortions of our views." 
 
Craig Lareau


Craig R. Lareau, J.D., Ph.D., A.B.P.P.
Diplomate in Forensic Psychology
American Board of Professional Psychology
(626) 444-8604
(626) 298-0417 cell
(626) 444-8604 fax
clareau@prodigy.net
--0-1045456674-1081442032=:521-- .