Forensic mental health assessment (FMHA) continues to develop and expand as a specialization. Since the publication of the First Edition of Forensic Mental Health Assessment: A Casebook over a decade ago, there have been a number of significant changes in the applicable law, ethics, science, and practice that have shaped the conceptual and empirical underpinnings of FMHA.The Second Edition of Forensic Mental Health Assessment is thoroughly updated in light of the developments and changes in the field, while still keeping the unique structure of presenting cases, detailed reports, and specific teaching points on a wide range of topics. Unlike anything else in the literature, it provides genuine (although disguised) case material, so trainees as well as legal and mental health professionals can review how high-quality forensic evaluation reports are written; it features contributions from leading experts in forensic psychology and psychiatry, providing samples of work in their particular areas of specialization; and it discusses case material in the larger context of broad foundational principles and specific teaching points, making it a valuable resource for teaching, training, and continuing education. Now featuring 50 real-world cases, this new edition covers topics including criminal responsibility, sexual offending risk evaluation, federal sentencing, capital sentencing, capacity to consent to treatment, personal injury, harassment and discrimination, guardianship, juvenile commitment, transfer and decertification, response style, expert testimony, evaluations in a military context, and many more. It will be invaluable for anyone involved in assessments for the courts, including psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, and attorneys, as well as for FMHA courses.

PrefaceAbout the EditorsContributors1 Introduction and Overview2 Miranda Waiver CapacityCase 1Principle: Use nomothetic evidence in assessing clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connectioncase contributed by I. Bruce FrumkinTeaching Point: What is the value of specialized forensic assessment instruments in forensic mental health assessmentcontributed by I. Bruce FrumkinCase 2Principle: Use case-specific (idiographic) evidence in assessing clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connectioncase contributed by Alan M. GoldsteinTeaching Point: What are the limits of specialized Forensic Assessment Instruments?contributed by Alan M. Goldstein3 Competence to Stand TrialCase 1Principle: Use testing when indicated in assessing response stylecase contributed by Richard RogersTeaching Point: Integrating different sources of response style datacontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Select the most appropriate model to guide in data gathering, interpretation, and communicationcase contributed by Patricia A. ZapfTeaching Point: How can you use a model to structure the way you write the report?contributed by Patricia A. ZapfCase 3Principle: Attribute information to sourcescase contributed by Samuel Hawes and Mary Alice ConroyTeaching Point: Separating and integrating data from different sources through source attribution in analyzing, reasoning about, and communicating FMHA resultscontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke4 Criminal ResponsibilityCase 1Principle: Be familiar with the relevant legal, ethical, scientific, and practice literatures pertaining to FMHAcase contributed by Robert M. WettsteinTeaching Point: Sources of particularly relevant information from the literaturecontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Attribute information to sourcescase contributed by Kathleen Kemp and Daniel MurrieTeaching Point: Line-by-line versus paragraph-level attributioncontributed by Daniel MurrieCase 3Principle: Decline the referral when evaluator impartiality is unlikelycase contributed by Ira K. PackerTeaching Point: Remaining impartial in high visibility casescontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke5 Sexual Offending Risk EvaluationCase 1Principle: Provide appropriate notification of purpose and obtain appropriate authorization before beginningcase contributed by Philip H. WittTeaching Point: Obtaining informed consent in Sexually Violent Predator casescontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke6 Federal SentencingCase 1Principle: Describe findings so that they need change little under cross-examinationcase contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Stephanie Brooks HollidayTeaching Point: Communicating findings to accurately reflect their strength and the evaluator's confidence in themcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use scientific reasoning in assessing the causal connection between clinical condition and functional abilitiescase contributed by David DeMatteoTeaching Point: Risk-assessment in sentencingcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke7 Capital SentencingCase 1Principle: Use multiple sources of information for each area being assessed. Review the available background information and actively seek important missing elementscase contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Jacey EricksonTeaching Point: How much is enough? Diminishing returns from information sourcescontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Obtain relevant historical informationcase contributed by Mark CunninghamTeaching Point: Evaluating the accuracy of different sources of third-party informationcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke8 Capital Sentencing, Atkins-type EvaluationsCase 1Principle: Accept referrals only within area of expertisecase contributed by J. Gregory OlleyTeaching Point: Gauging the training and experience in forensic and mental health areas needed for this kind of evaluationcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use relevance and reliability (validity) as guides for seeking information and selecting data sourcescase contributed by Karen L. SalekinTeaching Point: Selecting tools for use in FMHAcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke9 Competence for ExecutionCase 1Principle: Identify relevant forensic issuescase contributed by Patricia A. ZapfTeaching Point: Identify assessment targets when legal standards are broad or non-specificcontributed by Patricia A. Zapf10 Capacity to Consent to TreatmentCase 1Principle: Use third party information in assessing response stylecase contributed by David DeMatteoTeaching Point: Balancing results from interview, testing, and third party sources as they relate to response stylecontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: Communicating complex scientific material to legal professionals and lay audiencescontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke11 Testamentary CapacityCase 1Principle: Determine whether the individual understands the purpose of the evaluation and associated limits on confidentialitycase contributed by Eric DroginTeaching Point: Advantages of written versus spoken notification in determining whether the notification is understoodcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke12 Personal InjuryCase 1Principle: Carefully consider whether to answer the ultimate legal question. If answered, it should be in the context of a thorough evaluation clearly describing data and reasoning, and with the clear recognition that this question is in the domain of the legal decision makercase contributed by Bill FooteTeaching Point: Answering the ultimate legal question directlycontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Decline the referral when evaluator impartiality is unlikelycase contributed by Alan M. GoldsteinTeaching Point: Declining the case when impartiality would be too difficultcontributed by Alan M. Goldstein13 Civil CommitmentCase 1Principle: Use relevance and reliability (validity) as guides for seeking information and selecting data sourcescase contributed by Tadeus Edward Kowalski and Douglas MossmanTeaching Point: The strengths and weaknesses of classification systemscontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke14 Harassment and DiscriminationCase 1Principle: Do not become adversarial, but present and defend your opinions effectivelyPrinciple: Write report in sections, according to model and procedurescase contributed by Bill FooteTeaching Point: Communicating firmly but fairlycontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: The value of sequential communication of FMHA resultscontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke15 Workplace DisabilityCase 1Principle: Assess legally relevant behaviorcase contributed by Lisa Drago PiechowskiTeaching Point: The relationship between symptoms and disability in capacity to workcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Assess clinical characteristics in relevant, reliable, and valid wayscase contributed by Robert L. SadoffTeaching Point: Useful approaches to assessing clinical characteristics in FMHAcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke16 GuardianshipCase 1Principle: Be aware of the important differences between clinical and forensic domainsPrinciple: Be familiar with the relevant legal, ethical, scientific, and practice literatures pertaining to FMHAcase contributed by Randy K. OttoTeaching Point: Guardianship and the revised Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychologycontributed by Randy K. Otto17 Child CustodyCase 1Principle: Determine the particular role to be played if the referral is acceptedcase contributed by Marsha HedrickTeaching Point: Can one ever play more than one role in a single FMHA case?contributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use multiple sources of information for each area being assessedcase contributed by Jonathan W. GouldTeaching Point: The role of the forensic clinician in collecting third party informationcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke18 Child ProtectionCase 1Principle: Assess legally relevant behaviorcase contributed by Jennifer Clark and Karen BuddTeaching Point: Identifying forensic capacities when the legal standard is vague or unelaboratedcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Be guided by honesty and striving for impartiality, actively disclosing the limitations on as well as the support for one's opinionscase contributed by Kathryn Kuehnle and H. D. KirkpatrickTeaching Point: Specific strategies for promoting impartiality in a particular evaluationcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: Mental health professionals' role in assisting the court in determining the veracity of allegations of child sexual abusecontributed by Kathryn Kuehnle and H. D. Kirkpatrick19 Juvenile Miranda Waiver CapacityCase 1Principle: Use nomothetic evidence in assessing causal connection between clinical condition and functional abilitiescase contributed by I. Bruce FrumkinTeaching Point: Applying group-based evidence supporting a specialized forensic assessment measure in a single casecontributed by I. Bruce FrumkinCase 2Principle: Do not become adversarial, but present and defend your opinions effectivelycase contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Megan MurphyTeaching Point: Whether and how to criticize material from the recordscontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke20 Juvenile Competence to Stand TrialCase 1Principle: Use relevance and reliability (validity) as guides for seeking information and selecting data sourcescase contributed by David DeMatteoTeaching Point: Selecting a specialized measure on juvenile CSTcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Ensure that conditions for evaluation are quiet, private, and distraction-freecase contributed by Janet I. WarrenTeaching Point: Identifying and implementing strategies for improving inadequate conditionscontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke21 Juvenile CommitmentCase 1Principle: Accept referrals only within area of expertisecase contributed by David DeMatteo and Heidi StrohmaierTeaching Point: What training and experience in forensic, developmental, and mental health areas are needed for juvenile forensic expertise?contributed by Dewey G. CornellCase 2Principle: Provide appropriate notification of purpose and obtain appropriate authorization before beginningcase contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Lindsey PetersonTeaching Point: Obtaining authorization for evaluating minors who cannot yet legally consentcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke22 Transfer and DecertificationCase 1Principle: Assess legally relevant behaviorcase contributed by Amy L. Wevodau and Mary Alice ConroyTeaching Point: Translating legal criteria into forensic capacitiescontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use third party information in assessing response stylecase contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: Addressing conflicting information from the interview, testing, and third party sourcescontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke23 MilitaryCase 1Principle: Identify relevant forensic issuescase contributed by Michael Sweda and Samantha M. BeneshTeaching Point: Forensic issues in this kind of evaluation that is conducted in a military context, and comparability with and distinctions from civilian lawcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Obtain appropriate authorizationcase contributed by Paul MontalbanoTeaching Point: How does the evaluator address the question of "severe mental disease or defect?"contributed by Paul MontalbanoTeaching Point: Obtaining appropriate authorization in military FMHA, and similarities with and differences from civilian parameterscontributed by Paul MontalbanoCase 3Principle: Use nomothetic evidence of clinical condition, functional abilities, andcausal connectioncase contributed by Eric B. ElbogenTeaching Point: Combining nomothetic data with case-specific idiographic informationcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke24 Release Decision-MakingCase 1Principle: Obtain relevant historical informationcase contributed by Chad Brinkley and David MradTeaching Point: Integrating information from hospitalization and pre-hospitalization in release decision-makingcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Use multiple sources of information for each area being assessedcase contributed by Craig R. LareauTeaching Point: Using multiple sources for relevant hospitalization and pre-hospitalization informationcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 3Principle: Describe findings and limits so that they need change little under cross-examinationcase contributed by Terrance J. KukorTeaching Point: Achieving balance and facilitating accuracy in reporting findingscontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke25 Threat/Risk AssessmentCase 1Principle: Identify relevant forensic issuescase contributed by Stephen D. Hart and Kelly A. WattTeaching Point: The role of RNR in contemporary threat/risk assessmentcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeCase 2Principle: Ensure that conditions for evaluation are quiet, private, and distraction-freecase contributed by Dewey G. CornellTeaching Point: How can threat assessment be distinguished as a form of risk assessment?contributed by Dewey G. CornellCase 3Principle: Use nomothetic evidence in assessing clinical condition, functional abilities, and causal connectioncase contributed by Randy K. Otto and Jay SinghTeaching Point: Combining nomothetic data with case-specific, idiographic informationcontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukeTeaching Point: How can different approaches to risk assessment be used to inform the evaluation and the case outcome?contributed by Randy K. OttoCase 4Principle: Obtain relevant historical informationcase contributed by Joel A. DvoskinTeaching Point: When specialized measures cannot be usedcontributed by Joel A. Dvoskin26 Response StyleCase 1Principle: Use testing when indicated in assessing response stylecase contributed by Ashley Kirk Burgett and Richard FrederickTeaching Point: Assessing malingering of cognitive deficits using testingcontributed by Richard Frederick and Ashley Kirk BurgettCase 2Principle: Use third party information in assessing response stylecase contributed by Phillip J. ResnickTeaching Point: Using records and collateral interviews in assessing response stylecontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDuke27 Expert TestimonyCommentary throughout contributed by Stanley BrodskyCase 1Principle: Communicate effectivelyTeaching Point: Moving from "adequate" to "effective" in presenting expert testimonycontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukePrinciple: Base testimony on the results of the properly performed forensic mental health assessmentTeaching Point: Using the report to facilitate expert testimonycontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukePrinciple: Control the message. Strive to obtain, retain, and regain control over the meaning and impact of what is presented in expert testimonyTeaching Point: Strategies for maintaining some control over the messagecontributed by Kirk Heilbrun, David DeMatteo, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, and Casey LaDukecase contributed by Kirk Heilbrun and Jacey EricksonReferencesIndex