Pyschological Autopsies
Psychiatrists have been involved in criminal cases for years. Generally they have been limited to testifying about sanity and competency. Apparently not wanting to miss the expert bandwagon, some psychiatrists have ventured into psychological autopsies. If you haven't seen one, they most often come up in murder cases, where the issue is suicide or murder. The psychiatrist comes into court and testifies that based on the person's behavior, they wouldn't have taken their life. Of course the problem in many cases is that the same factors relied on could just as easily support a suicide. If you ask people who see a lot of suicides - e.g. crime scene people - they will tell you that in the majority of cases there is no clue the person was considering. Oftentimes it is a spur of the moment decision.
The problem with such testimony is that the question of whether a death is suicide or homicide determines whether a person goes home or goes to prison. Where there is not definitive evidence either way, the psychiatrist can effectively decide guilt. I've said before that science should never have such a deciding role in criminal cases.
If you have a case where the State is going to use a psychological autopsy there isn't much to use to prepare - or use in cross examination. I've seen cases where a psychiatrist has never done a psychological autopsy, but still qualifies as an expert. So you can't even use prior testimony. Needless to say that is a challenge for lawyers.
So I was happy to see the subject is going to be addressed at the National Academy of Forensic Sciences meeting in Chicago in a couple of weeks. The title of the luncheon seminar is "The Psychological Autopsy: It's History, Application, and Legal Ramifications." Since I'm going to be there anyway, I'm planning on going. I'll follow up and let you know what they say.
