Boytwnmom
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,652
- Reaction score
- 297
winnah! I'll excerpt from a TN court opinion where Geffner testified for the mother.
Let's check the boxes-biased, doesn't interview important witnesses including the guy who he declares is an "abuser". Yes, this seems like a typical expert the defense would come up with.
And, of course, he possesses that super secret, special ability that is incapable of being documented in any way, because of his "experienc" to determine who is an abuser and knows that tests are not required and in fact are not useful as only his special experience can find this "abuse".
Oh, and of course, he devotes all of his time to his "expert" testimony...
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/orourkec_111210.pdf
OK, so I think we can see what this guy's role is. The quesiton is whether the judge has allowed this new "expert" when the defense already got to have two. On of whom was a psychologist, just like this new guy. I'm not an AZ attorney but I don't get how you can suddenly rope in a whole new expert at this stage of trial when you already have one with the same credentials. What is the argument? Well, Juan destroyed our guy so we should get a new one. i really want to hear from AZlawyer or someone about this. Strikes me as really improper but then I am a picky person!
Dr. Geffners two affidavits to the court were executed on February 13and February 27, 2007. Prior to executing the affidavits, he had spoken to Mother on the phone as well as to the parties adult daughter Shawn Sanders, but he did not speak to Father or to any of the other witnesses in this case. He also examined the materials that Mother or her attorney had sent him. His affidavit stated that ased upon the records, interview, and tapes, it appears that Mr. ORourke exemplifies an abuser who has emotionally and physically abused his former wife and his children. He also stated that [h]e continues to manipulate and emotionally to abuse her in this battle to get custody and control of her.
Let's check the boxes-biased, doesn't interview important witnesses including the guy who he declares is an "abuser". Yes, this seems like a typical expert the defense would come up with.
And, of course, he possesses that super secret, special ability that is incapable of being documented in any way, because of his "experienc" to determine who is an abuser and knows that tests are not required and in fact are not useful as only his special experience can find this "abuse".
In his affidavits, as well as during nearly a full day of trial testimony, Dr. Geffner challenged the use of the MMPI and other psychological tests by Drs. Bernet and Walker. He stated that questions of domestic abuse and family violence implicated a specialized area of psychological practice which required a totally different testing regimen. He testified that he himself was an expert in the area of family violence and abuse, as shown by numerous publications he had authored and by his participation in professional societies that focus on those areas. These included the Natural Resource Center on Family Violence and Sexual Assault, an organization he had founded and in which served as president.
Dr. Geffner testified that none of the other psychiatrists or psychologists involved in this case possessed credentials similar to his, and he declared that the lack of such credentials rendered any opinions they might have as to the relative fitness of Father and Mother for parenting responsibilities suspect at best. He also stated that when a mental health professional conducts an evaluation outside that professionals expertise, it raises serious
ethical issues. He accordingly recommended that Mother file ethics complaints with Vanderbilt and the State Licensing Boards against the other mental health professionals involved in the case.
Oh, and of course, he devotes all of his time to his "expert" testimony...
Dr. Geffner testified on cross-examination that he no longer treats patients, but devotes all his time to consulting work related to his specialty. Fathers attorney questioned Dr. Geffner about his participation as an expert witness in a number of cases in different jurisdictions. These included Clark v. Collins, 956 F.2d 68 (5th Circuit 1992), a criminal case from Texas in which the court found that Dr. Geffners affidavit lacked credibility, in part because it was based on hearsay information supplied by the defendants attorney, with no independent verification of the information.
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/orourkec_111210.pdf
OK, so I think we can see what this guy's role is. The quesiton is whether the judge has allowed this new "expert" when the defense already got to have two. On of whom was a psychologist, just like this new guy. I'm not an AZ attorney but I don't get how you can suddenly rope in a whole new expert at this stage of trial when you already have one with the same credentials. What is the argument? Well, Juan destroyed our guy so we should get a new one. i really want to hear from AZlawyer or someone about this. Strikes me as really improper but then I am a picky person!
Does anyone have the information on this Dr Geffner being 'sanctioned'? I can't find anything on the internet.