1

Module 1 – A brief history of Psychology & Law

Definition:

The word 'forensic' originates from the Latin word 'forensis,' which means "the forum," or the
court system of Ancient Rome. The American Board of Forensic Psychology describes this
field as the application of psychology to issues that involve the law and legal system.
Forensic psychology is a field that combines the practice of psychology and the law by
utilizing psychological expertise within the justice system. Forensic psychology may
encompass evaluating competency to stand trial, making sentencing recommendations,
offering expert testimony, performing child custody evaluations, participating in jury
selection, and providing psychotherapy to criminal offenders. Forensic psychology is the
branch of psychology concerned with the production and application of psychological
knowledge and principles within the legal process.

Forensic psychology dates back to the early twentieth century, when the director of Harvard‘s
Psychological laboratory (Hugo Munsterberg) and others began advocating for the integration
of psychological research and the legal system.

Scope of Forensic Psychology:

• Competency evaluations

• Sentencing recommendations

• Evaluations of the risk of reoffending

• Testimony as an expert witness

• Child custody evaluations

• Academic research on criminality

• Consult with law enforcement

• Treatment of criminal offenders

• Provide psychological services to inmates and offenders

• Trial consultants who help with jury selection, witness preparation, or legal strategies

• Design correctional programs

A brief history of Psychology and Law:

Since both psychology and law are concerned with human behavior, they have been
intertwined since the dawn of recorded history. Later Greek philosophers continued to
express themselves on practical questions of law and topics that today constitute the subject
matter of psychology. For example, Plato (ca. 427–347 BC) in his Republic considered the
question whether mentally disordered people were responsible for their behavior. However, it
 2

took more than 2000 years for psychological knowledge to mature to a level where it was
officially allowed in the courtroom for the first time. This happened in 1896 when Albert Von
Schrenk-Notzing, student of Wilhelm Wundt who founded the first psychology laboratory in
Germany in 1879, testified in a murder trial concerning the effect of pretrial publicity on
memory and suggestibility (Blau 1998). Since then, forensic psychology has made great
strides.

The first seeds of forensic psychology were planted in 1879 when Wilhelm Wundt, often
referred to as the father of psychology, founded his first lab in Germany. Since Wundt, the
field of forensic psychology has blossomed, with contributions from lots of other experts in
the field. James McKeen Cattell conducted some of the earliest research on the psychology of
testimony. He posed a series of various questions to students at Columbia University, asking
them to provide a response and rate their degree of confidence in their answer. He found a
surprising degree of inaccuracy, inspiring other psychologists to conduct their own
experiments in eyewitness testimony. With even eyewitnesses being unsure of themselves,
this raised serious issues about the validity of their usefulness in court. Inspired by Cattell's
work, Alfred Binet replicated Cattell‘s research and studied the results of other psychology
experiments that applied to law and criminal justice. His work in intelligence testing was also
important to the development of forensic psychology, as many future assessment tools were
based on his work. Psychologist William Stern also studied witnesses' ability to recall
information. In one of his experiments, he asked students to summarize a dispute they
witnessed between two classmates. Stern discovered errors were common among witnesses
and concluded that a person's emotions could affect how accurately he remembered things.
Stern continued to study issues related to court testimony and later established the first
academic journal devoted to applied psychology. During this time, psychologists were
beginning to act as expert witnesses in criminal trials throughout Europe. In 1896, a
psychologist by the name of Albert von Schrenck-Notzing testified at a murder trial about the
effects of suggestibility on witness testimony. The German-American psychologist Hugo
Munsterberg's believed psychology had practical applications in everyday life, which in turn
contributed to the development of forensic psychology. In 1915, Munsterberg published "On
the Witness Stand," a book advocating the use of psychology in legal matters. Stanford
psychologist Lewis Terman began applying psychology to law enforcement in 1916. Terman
revised Binet‘s intelligence test to create the new Stanford-Binet test, which assessed the
intelligence of job candidates for law enforcement positions.. In 1917, psychologist William
Marston found that systolic blood pressure had a strong correlation to lying. This discovery
would later lead to the design of the modern polygraph detector. Completely undeterred by
the apparent lack of interest in what he had to say, Hugo Munsterberg set about promoting
and advancing the field of forensic psychology. Among other things, he conducted research
into witness memory, false confessions and the role of hypnosis in court. One of his earliest
experiments tested subjects‘ ability to discriminate between sounds heard in quick
succession. Almost sixty years later his findings were included as part of the preparation for
the trial (which for obvious reasons never actually took place) of Lee Harvey Oswald to help
address the question of how many shots had been fired during the assassination of President
Kennedy. Prior to the trial the Coca-Cola Company called upon psychologist Harry
 3

Hollingworth for an opinion as to the influence of caffeine on mental and motor processes. In
the absence of any reliable data on the subject, Hollingworth conducted a series of
experiments to test the influence of caffeine on such things as perception and association,
attention and judgment, steadiness, speed and coordination. Hollingworth testified that 'If the
constant use of caffeine in moderate amounts would prove deleterious, some indication of
such effect would have shown itself in the careful study of performance in tests covering a
wide range of mental and motor processes.' In the fourth week of the trial the case was
dismissed, and for Coca-Cola, the rest, as they say, is history. By providing psychological
information for the purpose of facilitating a legal decision, Hollingworth's testimony
represents a landmark case in the history of forensic psychology. Hollingworth went on to
become a renowned applied psychologist, conducting pioneering research within the field of
industrial and organizational psychology and advertising. He was elected President of the
American Psychological Association in 1927.

In 1889 Alfred Binet co-founded the first psychological laboratory in France. Having studied
medicine and law he was interested in how psychology could be applied within the legal
system, particularly in relation to witness testimony. However, it was Binet‘s work into
intellectual assessment that was to have the greatest forensic impact. Working alongside
Theodore Simon, he developed the first psychometric test of intelligence, the principles of
which proved the basis for later forensic assessment. For instance, in the US the Wechsler
Intelligence test for children was regularly employed as part of proceedings within juvenile
court.

Another important visionary in the history of forensic psychology, William Marston was a
student of the Legendary Hugo Münsterberg at Harvard University where he conducted
research on the physiological symptoms of deception, leading him to develop the first systolic
blood pressure deception ('lie detector') test. Marston is also famous for creating, writing and
producing the Wonder Woman comic strip under the pseudonym Charles Moulton, making
him without doubt the coolest psychologist of the 20th Century. Marston testified in 1923 in
the case of Frye vs. United States.: This case is significant because it established the
precedent for the use of expert witness in Courts. The Federal Court of Appeals determined
that a procedure, technique, or assessment must be generally accepted within its field in order
to be used as evidence.

Hugo Munsterberg‘s 1908 book On the Witness Stand highlighted areas of forensic
psychology research, many of which are still of interest today (e.g., false confessions,
eyewitness testimony, and crime prevention) . The clinical practice of forensic psychology
originated around the same time, with the development of William Healy‘s Chicago Juvenile
Psychopathic Institute for the treatment of delinquent juveniles. Several developments in the
mid-1990s contributed to the growth of forensic psychology and psychiatry in the United
States. One key development was that social science briefs (or ‗Brandeis Briefs‘) were used
in several important legal cases throughout the early to mid-twentieth century, including the
landmark desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education (1954) in which psychological
research was used as partial support for the United States Supreme Court ruling that racial
 4

segregation was a violation of both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment

A key turning point for forensic psychologists was the court case Jenkins v. United States
(1962). In Jenkins, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
ruled that properly trained and qualified psychologists could offer expert testimony on mental
health disorders. Prior to Jenkins, most courts only accepted expert testimony relating to
mental health disorders from psychiatrists.

The growth of forensic psychology resulted in the inception of forensic psychology‘s first
professional association in 1969, the American Psychology-Law Society (AP-LS) (Roesch et
al., 2010). Today, AP-LS has nearly 3000 members and is the most prominent professional
group for psychology and law professionals in North America, and it operates as both a
freestanding organization and as Division 41 of the American Psychological Association
(APA)

James McKeen Cattell is recognized by most as the first psychologist to combine the law and
psychology in his research (i.e., History of Forensic Psychology, 2013; Parrott, 1997). Cattell
experimented with the accuracy of the memories of 56 junior psychology students at
Columbia University to arrive at this groundbreaking idea. Previously and in contradiction,
researchers were of the opinion that ―useful applications of the material sciences have no
parallel in the case of the mental sciences‖ (Cattell, 1895, p. 765). Cattell posed a series of
both academic and practical questions testing the memories and powers of observation of
these 56 students. From their responses, he inferred that individual recollections, when
compared and contrasted, were more reliable and valid than were group responses after
collaboration. He applied his theory to jury deliberations and concluded that in court, the
―independently formed verdict of three jurors if concordant would probably have more
validity than the unanimous verdict of 12 jurors in consultation‖ (Cattell, 1895, p. 76).
Unfortunately, his tests were not considered reliable, and James Cattell terminated these
experiments (Parrott, 1997). The fact remains, however, that there does not seem to be an
earlier researcher or theorist who addressed the usefulness of psychology, or ―mental
science‖ as Cattell called it, in the courtroom. Hugo Munsterberg has been referred to as the
―father of forensic psychology‖ due to the publication of his book, On the Witness Stand:
Essays on Psychology and Crime (1908), but his work followed Cattell‘s by at least 12 years
(Huss, 2009).

Roles played by psychologists interested in law:

Many forensic psychologists work as professors in university psychology departments,

criminal justice departments or law schools. Expert witnesses Psychologists specifically
trained in legal issues, as well as those with no formal training, are often called by legal
parties to testify as expert witnesses. In criminal trials, an expert witness may be called to
testify about eyewitness memory, mistaken identity, competence to stand trial, the propensity
of a death-qualified jury to also be "pro-guilt", etc. Psychologists who focus on clinical issues
 5

often testify specifically about a defendant's competence, intelligence, etc. More general
testimony about perceptual issues (e.g., adequacy of police sirens) may also come up in trial.

• Along with Daubert, two later Supreme Court decisions—General Electric Co. v.
Joiner (1997) and Kumho Tire Ltd. v. Carmichael (1999)—have come to be
collectively known as the Daubert trilogy. This trilogy of decisions expanded the
gatekeeping role of trial judges. Whereas Daubert made judges responsible for
evaluating the research methods and statistics that provide the basis for an expert‘s
testimony, Joiner held that appellate courts should not second-guess a trial judge‘s
decision to exclude expert testimony

• The Daubert trilogy has had a clear impact on trial courts. Lawyers now file more
motions to limit or exclude the expert testimony proposed by lawyers on the other
side of the case. In addition, judges are now more likely to exclude expert testimony,
even if based on valid science. Interestingly, instead of relying on the specific criteria
mentioned in Daubert, judges appear to be basing their admissibility decisions on
characteristics of the expert such as education, experience, skill, and knowledge of the
subject matter

• In a seminal article on expert witnesses, Michael J. Saks described three roles that
might be assumed by expert witnesses. The conduit-educator strives to present a full
and accurate picture of the current state of psychological knowledge. He or she
realizes that, ―To do this may be to be a mere technocrat, rather than a human being
concerned with the moral implications of what I say and with the greater good of
society. The central difficulty of this role is whether it is all right for me to contribute
hard-won knowledge to causes I would just as soon see lose‖. In this role, the expert
faithfully represents a field of knowledge.

• In the second type of role, the philosopher-advocate, the expert makes concessions to
the adversarial climate of the courtroom and allows personal values to shape
testimony. He or she might say, ―There is a greater good at stake in this case, and that
is (fill in the blank: desegregating schools, seeing to it that this child goes to the right
home, keeping people from being executed, seeing to it that people are executed, etc.).
I must advocate for those outcomes, and that obviously means giving testimony that
involves clever editing, selecting, shading, exaggerating, or glossing over‖. In the
final role, that of hired gun, the expert essentially ―sells out‖ and capitulates to the
adversarial demands of the courtroom. A hired gun in intentionally shapes his or her
testimony to help the side of the hiring attorney.

• Experts, particularly psychology experts, are often accused of being "hired guns" or
"stating the obvious".Eyewitness memory experts, such as Elizabeth Loftus, are often
discounted by judges and lawyers with no empirical training because their research
utilizes undergraduate students and "unrealistic" scenarios. If both sides have
psychological witnesses, jurors may have the daunting task of assessing difficult
scientific information.
 6

• Policy making and legislative guidance Psychologists employed at public policy

centers may attempt to influence legislative policy or may be called upon by state (or
national) lawmakers to address some policy issue through empirical research. A
psychologist working in public policy might suggest laws or help to evaluate a new
legal practice (e.g., eyewitness lineups).

Psychologists as Advisors –

Legal psychologists may hold advisory roles in court systems. They may advise legal
decision makers, particularly judges, on psychological findings pertaining to issues in a case.
The psychologist who acts as a court adviser provides similar input to one acting as an expert
witness, but acts out of the domain of an adversarial system.

- Legal psychologists may assist judges by explaining psychological principles related

to a case.
- They provide insights on mental health, behavior patterns, or cognitive issues that
could influence case outcomes.
- This role is different from an expert witness because the psychologist works as a
neutral advisor rather than taking sides in a legal battle.

Amicus briefs : An amicus brief is a report written by psychologists or psychological

associations to help the court make informed decisions. It includes scientific research, data,
and expert opinions to educate the court on psychological issues.

Psychologists can provide an amicus brief to the court. The American Psychological
Association has provided briefs concerning mental illness, retardation and other factors. The
amicus brief usually contains an opinion backed by scientific citations and statistics. The
impact of an amicus brief by a psychological association is questionable. For instance, Justice
Powell once called a reliance on statistics "numerology" and discounted results of several
empirical studies. Judges who have no formal scientific training also may critique
experimental methods, and some feel that judges only cite an amicus brief when the brief
supports the judge's personal beliefs.

Trial consulting: Some psychologists who work in academics are hired as trial consultants
when their expertise can be useful to a particular case. Other psychologists/consultants work
for or with established trial consultant firms. The practice of law firms hiring "in-house" trial
consultants is becoming more popular, but these consultants usually can also be used by the
firms as practicing attorneys.

Forensic psychology helps in rendering fair judgement by investigating not only the physical
aspects but also the mental and psychological aspects of the person concerned. Their analysis
of all the cases is inductive and probabilistic in nature. As for the role of forensic
psychologists in the court room, they are called by the police, lawyers, or even judges to
interview and assess criminals. The information obtained by them from these interviews etc.
are used by the court of law. For instance, in the medico legal ward, on the mandate received
 7

from the court, a forensic psychologist may work in the area of rehabilitating the criminal or
the victim or both.

In India, under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, the court can take the help of
experts such as a forensic psychologist or a document expert etc. thus the forensic
psychologist presents facts to the courts so as to help the court to deliver justice in a fair and
just manner.

Psychologists as Evaluators:

1. Competency to Stand Trial (Fitness to Plead): This means determining whether the
defendant is mentally able to go through the trial process. The psychologist assesses
whether the person understands the charges against them, and can participate in their
defense and understand what‘s happening in court. For instance, if a person has severe
mental illness and doesn‘t understand what‘s going on in court, they might be found
incompetent to stand trial. In such cases, they are sent for treatment until they become
fit for trial.
2. Custody Evaluations in Family Court: Assess the fitness of parents and what
arrangement would be best for the child. This help judges make decisions about
custody and visitation. For instance, during a divorce, a psychologist evaluates both
parents‘ ability to care for the child, considering factors like mental health, stability,
and the child‘s needs.
3. Assessing Criminal Responsibility (Insanity Defense): They evaluate if a defendant
was mentally capable of understanding their actions or knowing right from wrong at
the time of the crime. This Help decide if the individual should be held criminally
responsible or referred to mental health care. For instance, they may review a
defendant‘s mental state during a crime (e.g., a person with a severe psychotic
episode) to determine if they meet the criteria for the insanity defense.
4. Sentence Mitigation: Even if a person doesn‘t qualify for an insanity defense, their
mental state at the time of the crime can still influence the punishment they receive.
Psychologists evaluate past trauma, mental health issues, or psychological abuse to
argue for a reduced sentence. For instance, a defendant with a history of childhood
abuse and PTSD may not avoid prison but could receive a lighter sentence based on
their psychological evaluation.
5. Evaluating Juvenile Offenders: This means they assess the mental and emotional
state of young offenders and their potential for rehabilitation. This help courts decide
if the juvenile should face punishment or rehabilitation. For instance, A psychologist
evaluates a teenager who has committed a serious crime to determine if they
understand the consequences of their actions and if they can benefit from counseling
or education programs.
6. Conducting Risk Assessment: This means they assess the likelihood of someone
committing a violent act in the future. This help courts and parole boards make
informed decisions about public safety. For instance, before releasing a prisoner on
 8

parole, a psychologist evaluates whether the individual is likely to re-offend based on

their past behavior, mental health, and other risk factors.
7. Program Evaluations: They evaluate the effectiveness of legal or correctional
programs. This helps improve or modify programs based on evidence. For instance,
they may assess whether an anger management program for prisoners is reducing
violent behavior.

The basic proposition of evaluation research is that any social program ought to be
evaluated as to its effectiveness. Programs are put in place to achieve social goals, and it is
only fair (some would say it is ethically necessary) to ask if those goals are being achieved.
For example, if a community puts in place a program where police officers attempt to reduce
drug use by talking to elementary school students about the dangers of drugs, it is fair to ask
whether students exposed to the program are less likely to use drugs than students who are
not exposed to the program. Evaluators distinguish between formative and summative
evaluations. Formative evaluations provide ongoing information about the effectiveness of a
program so that adjustments can be made. The information gathered from formative
evaluations is used to guide program development and help the program become successful.
In contrast, summative evaluations attempt to sum up how well a program has met its goals.
Often, summative evaluations judge overall effectiveness and recommend whether a program
should be continued or abandoned. In the legal system, the approach is usually formative—
the issue is not whether to continue or abandon a practice, but how a practice can be
improved or fine-tuned. Hence, evaluation researchers not only try to discover if a program
works, but how a program works. Making wise decisions about which components of a
program need to be modified presupposes a clear understanding of how that program works.

Psychologists as Reformers:

Evaluation and understanding without any attempt at reform is an empty exercise. Still, many
psychologists are uncomfortable playing the role of reformer. Many researchers are trained in
a ―basic‖ or ―pure‖ science model. This means that they ask questions to satisfy their own
curiosity or to test the propositions of a theory. The real question is not whether our research
findings are final or infallible; it is whether the current state of knowledge based on carefully
conducted research can be used to improve current practice in the legal system.

Psychologists as reformers focus on solving problems or improving situations by directly

helping people or systems work better. They often step in when a legal or social issue needs
intervention to make things right. They works to improve or change something to make it
better – to bring a positive change. Difference between Evaluators and Reformers is that
Evaluators focus on assessing and providing information to guide legal decisions. For
instance, evaluating if someone is mentally fit for trial. Reformers focus on solving
problems or implementing interventions to create change. For instance, providing therapy
to someone not competent to stand trial to help them become competent.
 9

1. Restoring Competence to Stand Trial: When a defendant is declared not

competent to stand trial, psychologists as a reformer would provide treatment or
training to help them understand the legal system and participate in their defense. For
instance, a person with severe mental illness does not understand what a trial is or
why they are being prosecuted. The psychologist might provide therapy, medication,
or educational sessions to restore their competence. Their goal is to ensure the
defendant can engage meaningfully in their trial.
2. Helping Divorced Parents Resolve Custody Issues: Courts often refer divorced
parents to psychologists when they struggle to make decisions about their child‘s
upbringing. For instance, two parents frequently fight about where their child should
go to school. A psychologist as a reformer helps them communicate, focus on the
child‘s well-being, and reach decisions without involving the court repeatedly. The
goal here is to promote cooperation and reduce parental conflict for the child‘s best
interest (Teaching the parents how to cooperate and focus on what‘s best for their
child instead of personal disagreements).
3. Treating Offenders to Prevent Re-Offending: They provide intervention for
offenders to address the behaviors or mental health issues that led to their crimes. For
instance, a psychologist works with a person convicted of theft who also has a history
of addiction. Through therapy and rehabilitation programs, they address the root cause
of the criminal behavior. The goal is to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and
support reintegration into society.
4. Helping Juveniles or Young Offenders: They provide therapy or intervention for
young offenders to address emotional, behavioral, or social issues that contributed to
their actions. For instance, a teenager involved in vandalism is referred to a
psychologist who helps them understand the consequences of their actions and
provides anger management training. The goal is to prevent future crimes and guide
them toward positive behavior.
5. Supporting Victims of Crime: They work with victims of crime to help them
recover emotionally and mentally. For instance, a victim of assault may work with a
psychologist to process trauma, rebuild confidence, and return to a sense of normalcy.
The goal is to empower victims to heal and regain stability in their lives.
6. Advocating for Systemic Reforms: They may recommend changes to systems, such
as prisons, to improve outcomes for individuals. For instance, advocating for mental
health programs in correctional facilities and address underlying issues like substance
abuse or trauma. The goal here is to make systemic changes that reduce recidivism
and support rehabilitation.

Psychologists, as reformers, advocates for legal changes, use empirical research to support
reforms in the criminal justice system, leading to improved rehabilitation programs, the
design, implementation, and evaluation of interventions to restore mental health, and
increased awareness of psychological well-being, especially considering the high prevalence
of mental health issues in prisons despite recent improvements in mental health care
provision.
 10

There are two components of Forensic Psychology (i) applied and (ii) academic.

1. Applied Forensic Psychology deals with the following:

i) Police Psychology (Recruitment, Job Stress)

ii) Investigative Psychology

iii) Criminal Profiling.

iv) Polygraph Examination to verify the veracity of statement of the subjects (i.e.
suspects/accused persons, victims, and witnesses) regarding the facts of the crime
under investigation.

v) Brain Mapping to assess the experiential knowledge of the subjects regarding the
crime under investigation.

vi) Narco-analysis to unveil the sub conscious mind of the subjects in case they are
not able to recall the facts of the crime under investigation (this test has should be
applied in rare cases).

vii) Interview and cognitive interview.

viii) Psychological Assessment

ix) Clinical Psychology (Assessment) Prediction

x) Prison Psychology (Treatment, Parole/ Release)

2. Academic Forensic Psychology includes the following:

i) Biological Psychology (Inheritance of criminality, Effects of injury)

ii) Developmental Psychology (Aggression, Delinquency)

iii) Cognitive Psychology (Eyewitness Testimony, Interviewing)

iv) Social Psychology ( Juries, Media Influences)

Evaluating the criminal justice system:

1) At the interrogation level by application of scientific methods like:

• Cognitive Interview

• Polygraph

• Brain Mapping —

• Hypnosis/ Narco-Hypnosis

• Criminal Profiling
 11

2) At the Judicial procedure level

• By presenting evidence

• By assessing the mental status of the offender/ victim – i.e. competency to stand trial
and to take criminal responsibility.

According to a survey, the forensic psychologists frequently used MMPI-2, one of the
Wechsler intelligence or memory, one of the Hare Psychopathic Checklist versions,
Structured Interview of Reported Symptom, and Personality Assessment Inventory. While
evaluating, legal dimension, examiners‘ objectivity and multiple tests are recommended.
There is more emphasis on use of multiple sources of data to verify information as well as
strong reliance on external sources (i.e. collateral observations, historical records, and reports
of others). While there are some instruments specifically developed for forensic use, like
structured interviews, rating scales, or tests designed for use with a particular legal
application in mind like Competence Assessment Instrument for Standing Trial (CAI),
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), and Competence Assessment Instrument for
Standing Trial for Defendants with Mental Retardation (CAST/MR), there are also many
other instruments which are used in other settings that can be used in forensic field.

Mental Status Examination (MSE):

• The most commonly used test of cognitive functioning per se is the so-called Folstein
Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE), developed in 1975.

Cognitive Interview (CI):

The CI is divided into five sections: introduction, open-ended narration, probing for details,
review, and closing the interview. Most empirical studies have tested witness recall within a
few hours or a few days of the critical event. Some studies, however, have shown the CI to
enhance witness recall after several months, and one study even showed a very large benefit
after 35 years. The CI has been demonstrated to work effectively in a variety of investigative
interviews in addition to criminal investigation—for example, accident or public health
investigation. It has not, however, been effective in identification tasks: Witnesses given a CI
prior to an identification test (e.g., lineup) were no more accurate than witnesses given a
control interview. The questioning should be compatible with the cognitive abilities of the
interviewee. The recall activity should include sensory motor imagery of the events. The
probe should be of a specific nature to facilitate the flow of information and to ensure that all
elements are covered specifically asking about things such as the time at which events took
place. Mentally reinstate the incident including their feelings associated with it, and external
factors that they are able to recall. Try to report the events in a number of different sequences
i.e. besides recollecting in chronological order also in reverse order or starting from the
middle. Report events from alternative perspectives like that of another witness, the offender
or from other physical location. Retrieval method has to be varied and extensive in order to
facilitate recall to the maximum.

Cognitive Testing:
 12

Cognitive testing is a method to ascertain the functions of the brain whether it is functioning
well or otherwise? This technique has been developed in the field of Neuropsychology, which
includes a vast array of tests that measure basic intelligence, learning and memory, sensory
perception and sensory-muscle integration, reasoning and problem solving skills, language
and communication abilities, and basic academic skills. Cognitive testing is able to identify
and to document the level of skill or the degree of impaired functioning of a person. The
utility of this technique in the forensic field is in cases involving head injury, toxic exposure,
or questions of competency or capacity. To name some of these tests – Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale (WAIS), Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Halstead-
Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery.

In forensic field the personality testing is utilised to address questions like risk assessment,
mental illness diagnosis and treatment recommendations, competency and capacity, tort cases
where emotional distress claims are made, and criminal cases where mental illness factors are
being presented. To name some standardised personality tests, we can mention the following:

• Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI and MMPI-2),

• Personality Assessment Inventory such as EPI

• NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) and

• A projective test Rorschach Inkblots

-Dr. Teisovinuo Semou