1.Center for Legal Advocacy v. Bicha et al, U.S. District Court of Colorado, Case No. 1:2011cv02285 (2011).
2.Redding, RE, Murrie, DC. Judicial Decision Making about Forensic Mental Health Evidence. In: Goldstein, A. M., ed. Forensic Psychology: Emerging Topics and Expanding Roles. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2007:683–707.
3.Acklin, MW, Fuger, K, Gowensmith, WN Examiner agreement and judicial consensus in forensic mental health evaluations. J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2015;15(4):318–343. doi:10.1080/15228932.2015.1051447.
4.Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC & Boccaccini, MT Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree? Law Hum Behav. 2012;36(2):130–139. doi:10.1037/h0093958.
5.Zapf, PA, Hubbard, KL, Cooper, VG, et al. Have the courts abdicated their responsibility for determination of competency to stand trial to clinicians? J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2004;4(1):27–44. doi:10.1300/J158v04n01_02.
6.Cruise, KR, Rogers, R. An analysis of competency to stand trial: an integration of case law and clinical knowledge. Behav Sci Law. 1998;16(1):35–50. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0798(199824)16:1<35::AID-BSL292>3.0.CO;2-4.
9.Gowensmith, WN Resolution or resignation: The role of forensic mental health professionals amidst the competency services crisis. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2019;25(1):1 – 14. doi:10.1037/law0000190.
10.Locklair, B. Due process problems with civil commitment of incompetent defendants: The current round of litigation and the next. Paper presented at: The American Psychology-Law Society Annual Conference; 2016, Atlanta, GA.
11.Bryson, CN, Boccaccini, MT, Gowensmith, WN, et al. Does time matter in competency to stand trial evaluations? Paper presented at: The annual meeting of the American Psychology–Law Society; March 2019; Portland, OR.
12.Gowensmith, WN, Metroz, H, Bratcher, J. The impact of timing on competency to stand trial evaluations. Paper presented at: The annual meeting of the American Psychology–Law Society; March 2016; Atlanta, GA.
13.Nguyen, AH, Acklin, MW, Fuger, K, et al. Freedom in paradise: Quality of conditional release reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2011;34(5):341–348. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.08.006.
14.Robinson, R, Acklin, MW. Fitness in paradise: Quality of forensic reports submitted to the Hawaii judiciary. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2010;33:131–137. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.03.001.
15.Boccaccini, MT, Chevalier, CS, Murrie, DC, et al. Psychopathy Checklist—Revised use and reporting practices in sexually violent predator evaluations. Sex Abuse. 2017;29(6):592–614. doi:10.1177/1079063215612443.
16.Parker, G. Come see the bias inherent in the system! J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2016;44(4):411–414.
17.Chevalier, CS, Boccaccini, MT, Murrie, DC, et al. Static-99R reporting practices in sexually violent predator cases: Does norm selection reflect adversarial allegiance? Law Hum Behav. 2015;39(3):209–218. doi:10.1037/lhb0000114.
18.McCallum, KE, MacLean, N, & Gowensmith, WN The impact of defendant ethnicity on the psycho-legal opinion of forensic evaluators. Int J Law Psychiatry. 2014;39:6–12. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.01.015.
19.Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT, Guarnera, LA, et al. Are forensic experts biased by the side that retained them? Psychol Sci. 2013;24(10):1889–1897. doi:10.1177/0956797613481812.
20.Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, M, Zapf, PA, et al. Clinician variation in findings of competence to stand trial. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2008;14:177–193. doi:10.1037/a0013578.
21.Murrie, DC & Warren, JI. Clinician variation in rates of legal sanity opinions: Implications for self-monitoring. Prof Psychol. 2005;36:519–524. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.5.519.
22.Hagen, MA. Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice. New York, NY, US: Harper Collins Publishers; 1997.
23.Bergeron, ML. The use of psychiatric expertise in the forensic context: Balm or blunder. Windsor Yearb Access Justice. 1994;14:221.
24.Faust, D, Ziskin, J. The expert witness in psychology and psychiatry. Science. 1988;241(4861):31–35. doi:10.1126/science.3291114.
25.Melton, GB, Petrila, J, Poythress, NG, et al. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2007.
26.Warren, JI, Chuahan, P, Kois, L, et al. Factors influencing 2260 opinions of defendants’ restorability to adjudicative competency. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2013;19:498–508.
27.Fitch, WL. Forensic mental health services in the United States (Report No. 3, HHSS2834200IT). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors; 2014.
28.Wisconsin Department of Health Services. Annual Report (Report No. P-00568). Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Health Services; 2015.
29.Joint Legislative and Audit Review Committee. State of Washington Final Report: Competency to Stand Trial, Phase II (Report No. 14-1). Olympia, WA: Joint Legislative and Audit Review Committee; 2014.
32.Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Packer, IK. Report in Response to the Trueblood v. State Washington’s Department of Social and Health Services. State of Washington: Office of Attorney General; 2015.
33.Oregon Advocacy Center v. Mink. No. 02-35530, 9th Cir.; 2003.
34.Trueblood v. State of Washington Department of Human and Social Services. No. 2:2014cv01178, Washington Western District Court; 2015.
35.Pirelli, G, Gottdiener, WH, Zapf, PA. A meta-analytic review of competency to stand trial research. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2011;17(1):1–53. doi:10.1037/a0021713.
36., Roskes, , December 12, 2014
37.Bryson, CN, Boccaccini, MT, Gowensmith, WN, et al. Time matters in competency to stand trial evaluations. Poster presented at: The Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society; March 2018; Memphis, TN.
38.Skeem, JL, Golding, SL, Cohn, NB, et al. Logic and reliability of evaluations of competence to stand trial. Law Hum Behav. 1998;22(5):519–547. doi:10.1023/A:1025787429972.
39.Gowensmith, WN, Pinals, DA, & Karas, AC States’ standards for training and certifying evaluators of competency to stand trial. J Forensic Psychol Pract. 2015;15(4):295–317. doi:10.1080/15228932.2015.1046798.
40.Petrella, RC & Poythress, NG. The quality of forensic evaluations: An interdisciplinary study. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983;51(1):76–85. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.51.1.76.
41.Poythress, NG, Otto, RK, & Heilbrun, K. Pretrial evaluations for criminal courts: Contemporary models of service delivery. J Ment Health Adm. 1991; 18:198–208.
42.Kois, L, Pearson, J, Chauhan, P, et al. Competency to stand trial among female inpatients. Law Hum Behav, 2013;37(4):231–240. doi:10.1037/lhb0000014
43.Mossman, D, Noffsinger, SG, Ash, P, et al. AAPL practice guideline for the forensic psychiatric evaluation of competence to stand trial. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2007;35:S3–S72.
44.Pinals, DA, Tillbrook, CE, & Mumley, DL Practical application of the MacArthur competence assessment tool—criminal adjudication (MacCAT-CA) in a public sector forensic setting. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2006;34:179–188.
45.Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 405 U.S. 597 (1993).
46.Boccaccini, MT, Turner, D, & Murrie, DC Do some evaluators report consistently higher or lower psychopathy scores than others? Findings from a statewide sample of sexually violent predator evaluations. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2008;14:262–283. doi:10.1037/a00114523.
47.Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960).
48.Mossman, D. When forensic examiners disagree: Bias, or just inaccuracy? Psychol Public Policy Law. 2013;19(1):40–55. doi:10.1037/a0029242.
49.Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT, Turner, D, et al. Rater (dis)agreement on risk assessment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings: Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation? Psychol Public Policy Law. 2009;15:19–53. doi:10.1037/a0014897.
50.Callahan, LA, & Silver, E. Factors associated with the conditional release of persons acquitted by reason of insanity: A decision tree approach. Law Hum Behav. 1998;22:147–163. doi:10.1023/A:1025790003139.
51.Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree? Law Hum Behav. 2012;36(2):130–139. doi:10.1037/h0093958.
52.Dror, IE, Murrie, DC A hierarchy of expert performance applied to forensic psychological assessments. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2018;24(1):11–23. doi:10.1037/law0000140.
53.Mossman, D, Bowen, MD, Vanness, DJ, et al. Quantifying the accuracy of forensic examiners in the absence of a “gold standard.” Law Hum Behav. 2010;34(5):402–417. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9197-5.
54.Gowensmith, WN, Murrie, DC, Boccaccini, MT, et al. Field reliability influences field validity: Risk assessments of individuals found not guilty by reason of insanity. Psychol Assess. 2017;29(6):786–794. doi:10.1037/pas0000376.
55.Gowensmith, WN, Sledd, M, & Sessarego, S. The impact of stringent certification standards on forensic evaluator reliability: Further analysis. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of the American Psychology–Law Society; March 2015; San Diego, CA.
57.Gowensmith, WN & McCallum, KE. Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the least biased of them all? Dangers and potential solutions regarding bias in forensic psychological evaluations. S Afr J Psychol. 2019:1–12. doi:10.1177/0081246319835117.
58.Pronin, E, Kugler, MB Valuing thoughts, ignoring behavior: The introspection illusion as a source of the bias blind spot. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2007;43(4):565–578.
59.Neal, T, Grisso, T The cognitive underpinnings of bias in forensic mental health evaluations. Psychol Public Policy Law. 2014;20(2):200–211. doi:10.1037/a0035824.
60.Brodsky, SL. Testifying in Court: Guidelines and Maxims for the Expert Witness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1991.
61.Brodsky, SL. The Expert Expert Witness. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1999.
62.Gowensmith, WN, McCallum, KE, Nadkarni, L, et al. Monitoring potential bias within a forensic evaluation agency. Paper presented at: The Annual Meeting of the American Psychology-Law Society; March 2019; Portland, OR.