由专家判断的律师准备:一项实证试点研究

T. Gutheil, P. Miller, M. Commons
{"title":"由专家判断的律师准备:一项实证试点研究","authors":"T. Gutheil, P. Miller, M. Commons","doi":"10.1177/009318531103900303","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This pilot study examines the “preparedness” of attorneys as perceived by respondent expert witnesses. Retaining and opposing counsel were rated with regard to their familiarity with the respondent's qualifications, with the respondent's published writings, and with the psychiatric and legal issues of the case in question. Respondents also addressed whether retaining and opposing counsel were sufficiently ready for deposition, direct examination at trial, and cross examination at trial. Respondents found familiarity with legal issues of the case and readiness for deposition as well as cross examination at trial to be the most salient indicia of “preparedness,” particularly when these attributes were ascribed to opposing counsel.","PeriodicalId":83131,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","volume":"22 1","pages":"397 - 409"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attorney Preparedness as Judged by Experts: An Empirical Pilot Study\",\"authors\":\"T. Gutheil, P. Miller, M. Commons\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/009318531103900303\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This pilot study examines the “preparedness” of attorneys as perceived by respondent expert witnesses. Retaining and opposing counsel were rated with regard to their familiarity with the respondent's qualifications, with the respondent's published writings, and with the psychiatric and legal issues of the case in question. Respondents also addressed whether retaining and opposing counsel were sufficiently ready for deposition, direct examination at trial, and cross examination at trial. Respondents found familiarity with legal issues of the case and readiness for deposition as well as cross examination at trial to be the most salient indicia of “preparedness,” particularly when these attributes were ascribed to opposing counsel.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of psychiatry & law\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"397 - 409\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of psychiatry & law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900303\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of psychiatry & law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/009318531103900303","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这项试点研究考察了被告专家证人所认为的律师的“准备”。对保留律师和反对律师进行评级是根据他们对被告的资格、被告发表的著作以及对所涉案件的精神病学和法律问题的熟悉程度。答辩人还谈到了保留律师和对方律师是否做好了充分的准备,以便在审判中作证、直接询问和交叉询问。被告发现,熟悉案件的法律问题、准备好作证以及在审判中进行交叉询问是“准备”的最显著标志,特别是当这些特征被归因于对方律师时。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Attorney Preparedness as Judged by Experts: An Empirical Pilot Study
This pilot study examines the “preparedness” of attorneys as perceived by respondent expert witnesses. Retaining and opposing counsel were rated with regard to their familiarity with the respondent's qualifications, with the respondent's published writings, and with the psychiatric and legal issues of the case in question. Respondents also addressed whether retaining and opposing counsel were sufficiently ready for deposition, direct examination at trial, and cross examination at trial. Respondents found familiarity with legal issues of the case and readiness for deposition as well as cross examination at trial to be the most salient indicia of “preparedness,” particularly when these attributes were ascribed to opposing counsel.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association of Subclinical Hearing Loss With Cognitive Performance. Robert L. Sadoff, M.D.: A Festschrift Criminal Law Standards in Civil Commitment “Justice's Beautiful Face”: Bob Sadoff and the Redemptive Promise of Therapeutic Jurisprudence On Honesty and Integrity in Forensic Science: A Snapshot of Robert L. Sadoff, M.D.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1