Author Archives: Marvin W. Acklin, Ph.D.

My name is Marvin Acklin. I am a board-certified clinical and forensic psychologist practicing in Honolulu. I am very interested in psychology interfacing with the legal system. As I am a forensic generalist, I am involved daily in a wide range of cases. These include criminal (insanity and fitness to stand trial) and civil law (personal injury), child custody, personnel selection/fitness for duty, legal capacity assessments, and forensic risk assessment. We do violence risk assessments for the courts and private attorneys. I am a trained child forensic interviewer in cases of suspected child sexual abuse. I have diverse interests in medicine, law, history, theology, and clinical, assessment, social, and forensic psychology.
Please visit my website: http://dracklin.com

My practice partner, Dr. Melissa Villalon, and I perform psychosexual risk assessments in both the private sector and for the Hawaii Sex Offender Treatment Program.
Please visit our website: http://www.pacificforensicassociates.com/

Ipse Dixit, Expert witnesses, & Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology

Ipse Dixit in Latin means, “he himself said it”; It is frequently encountered in expert testimony. Ipse dixit is an unsupported statement that rests solely on the authority of the speaker. I think a better translation is “because I said it…[it is true].” It is a conclusory opinion without support. Gutheil & Bursztjan (2003) articulate […]

Bias, cognitive heuristics, and forensic decision-making

The cumulative weight of 30 years of research originating in Tversky and Kaheman’s seminal 1974 description of the mental shortcuts humans use when confronting cognitive ambiguity complexity, and Kahneman’s recent masterpiece Thinking Fast, and Slow (2011, cf. Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman, 2002) has created a mature cognitive science of forensic decision-making. The findings are not […]

Forensic Psychology is Forensic Science.

There has been a growing awareness, some would say crisis, concerning the mediocre quality of expert forensic testimony submitted to the courts in the United States. This appears to be a function of weak methods, and a low threshold for judicial gatekeeping, despite clear mandates in Rule 702 and Daubert and progeny on the foundations […]

Professional Ethics,”partisan allegiance,” and expert witness liability

Daniel Murrie and his colleagues have produced a series of recent studies on “partisan allegiance” in forensic expert witness work (see citations below). They define partisan allegiance as the tendency for experts to bias their testimony in favor of the side that calls them. They demonstrate this through ingenious experiments with PCL-R ratings. The response […]

Thriving as a forensic psychologist

A nice article by William Foote PhD in APA’s Good Practice (Winter 2014) is worth a look for students who think they might be interested in forensic psychology. Contrasting clinical and forensic psychology, he writes, “But the field is not for everyone…Forensic psychology is also much more confrontational. You’re often in an adversarial position, with […]

Competency Restoration in the State of Hawaii: An object lesson

Karen Franklin’s blog is the premier site for ground-breaking issues in forensic psychology. Always worthwhile and readable, witty and biting, sometimes breathtaking and bold. Her March 9, 2014, post addresses the recent scandal at Napa State Hospital in California, which serves the Northern California incompetent defendant and NGRI population, similar to our Hawaii State Hospital. […]

Assessing Homicidal Mental States at the Time of Offense IV: The 2011 Norway Massacre: Criminal responsibility analysis using the R-CRAS.

The use of forensic assessment instruments is a distinguishing factor in the quality of forensic reports (Fuger, Acklin, Nguyen, Ignacio, & Gowensmith, 2013). In insanity determinations, the Rogers Criminal Responsibility Assessment Scales (R-CRAS, PAR, Inc.) are without peer as an aide to organizing and analyzing case data. It is a systematic coding measure which permits […]

Assessing Homicidal Mental States at the Time of Offense III: The 2011 Norway Massacre: The 2nd forensic psychiatric examination.

Based on publicity and professional commentary (“…intense media coverage, with repeated requests for a new evaluation by major newspapers and politicians”), the court ordered a second forensic psychiatric examination of Breivik. It was conducted 6 months after the first examination. The two psychiatrists “conducted a considerably longer evaluation, and used additional psychological assessment instruments.” They […]

Assessing Homicidal Mental States at the Time of Offense II: The 2011 Norway Massacre: The 1st forensic psychiatric examination.

The first examination conducted by two psychiatrists included 13 interviews (36 hours total), review of police interrogations, and collateral interview with Breivik’s mother. They coded the material using the Norwegian version of the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview Plus for ICD-10, and selected modules of the Norwegian version of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-IV). Based […]

Assessing Homicidal Mental States at the Time of Offense I: The 2011 Norway Massacre: Background.

As a court appointed mental examiner, I am regularly asked to perform mental state at the time of the offense (MSO) examinations when the court must make a determination of criminal responsibility. A significant number of these cases involve the killing of another human being. High profile cases are often instructive for mental examiners. The […]