In courts throughout the United States—ranging from local city trial courts all the way up to the United States Supreme Court—judges regularly make decisions about issues that are relevant to psychologists’ work. In some cases judges use psychological science to support their legal analysis, while in others they ignore or dismiss research findings that could have helped them to reach an evidence-based conclusion. Sometimes court decisions highlight psycholegal questions that remain in need of scholarly attention. Other times, case outcomes directly impact how psychologists do their job.

To educate psychologists about these matters, SPSSI’s Courtwatch Committee monitors and reports on pending and recent court decisions in the “Judicial Notebook,” a regular column in the APA’s Monitor on Psychology magazine. Our central goal in producing these columns is to make recommendations for how psychologists can leverage their expertise to inform policy and law and shape the future of psychological science and practice.

For instance, in March of this year, Jennifer Robbennolt brought attention to a case in which a state supreme court cited psychological research to support allowing an identification by someone who did not actually witness the alleged crime but instead testified about who they believed was responsible based on images taken from surveillance video. Given the role mistaken identifications play in contributing to wrongful convictions, Robbennolt emphasized the need for research on factors that affect the reliability of such non-eyewitness identifications.

As another example, in April’s column, Kathryn LaFortune discussed a case in which a judge recognized that a history of intimate partner violence could contribute to a woman’s use of lethal force to defend herself against her abuser. This outcome was the result of newly passed legislation designed to rectify years of gender bias in the successful application of stand-your-grounds laws by permitting psychological expert testimony about domestic violence, psychological abuse, and post-traumatic stress disorder. LaFortune called on psychologists to serve as experts and to advocate for similar legislation in other states.

In a column scheduled for publication in July, Srishti Katuri and I considered various policies designed to facilitate immigrant detention and deportation which federal courts have recently rendered judgment upon or will be soon evaluating. We discuss research showing the negative mental health impacts such restrictive policies have on immigrants, call for psychologists to share this evidence with courts, and emphasize the need for identification and implementation of strategies that make mental health services more accessible and responsive to immigrants and their family members.

To spread the word about how psychology can impact legal policy and practice as well as how psychology is impacted by various court decisions, our “Judicial Notebook” columns are shared with all APA members via the Monitor on Psychology. We also occasionally share notices about our columns via SPSSI’s email and social media communications and republish them on SPSSI's Psychology Today “Sound Science, Sound Policy” blog. Finally, our columns are also archived on the SPSSI website. I encourage you to keep your eye on all of these platforms to learn more about the Courtwatch Committee’s work and your role in improving the impact and practice of psychology.

back to menu