ABPP Exam {2024} Questions
with Complete Solutions
Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates (1989) - Answer - an engineer who testified as an
expert witness on behalf of respondents at a previous trial is entitled to immunity from
suit based on his testimony. Can't sue an expert based on testimony.
Murphy v. AA Mathews (92) - Answer - holding that witness immunity does not bar suit
against an expert who is negligent in the preparation of services.
Budwin v. American Psychological Association (94) - Answer - Psychologist who
testified in custody case and the mother filed complaint to APA that he failed to honor
his commitments to produce records and addressing limits of interactions in court and
testimony. Litigation privilege which protects people who testify in trial from liability does
not preclude sanction by professional organizations.
Deatherage v. Examining board of psychology (94) - Answer - Absolute immunity for
expert witnesses does not extend to disciplinary proceedings of a state licensing board.
In re Lifschutz, 2 cal (70) - Answer - Greater degree of confidentiality legally provided for
psychotherapy than for other medical treatment. Dr refused to provide testimony
regarding treatment.
Doe v. Roe (1977) - Answer - Psychiatrist entered an agreement and violated breach of
patient confidentiality. Psychiatrist wrote a book with detailed information therapy. while
names were not used, it was apparent who the patients were.
Commonwealth v. Kobrin (85) - Answer - Psychiatrist involved in Medicaid fraud. A
psychiatrist did not have to turn over notes that would reveal what a patient told him
however had to turn information about drugs prescribed, ECT and notes reflecting his
opinion about the patient's condition and progress.
Federal rule of Evidence 701 - Answer - If witness its not testifying as an expert, their
opinions need to be based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear
understanding of the witness testimony.
,Mens Rea - Answer - the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a
crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.
Menendez v. superior court (92) - Answer - The dangerous patient exception to the
psychotherapist-patient privilege is available when the therapist has reasonable cause
to believe disclosure is necessary to prevent harm. the tapes were disclosed as not
meeting the confidential clause due to harm others. only parts of it was used.
Rule 702 - Answer - the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue
Federal rule 704 - Answer - expert cannot testify where the person did or didnt have a
mental state during the crime. Experts cannot testify as to the ultimate issue on the
case.
Estelle v. Smith (1981) - Answer - CST evaluations only introduced if defendant places
mental state into evidence. The state may not force a defendant to summit to a
psychiatric evaluation solely for the purpose of sentencing.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - Answer - 5th Amendment self-incrimination clause requires
government agents to warn suspects of their right to remain silent and/or contact an
attorney before questioning them when they are in custody. Statements made without
Miranda Warning are inadmissible in court (like the exclusionary rule for evidence)
Kansas v. Cheever (2013) - Answer - (Cheever killed a cop while on meth.)
Result of an evaluation is waived if any defense use of mental health professional is
used at trial including alchohol intoxication.
He alleged that the admission of the psychiatrist testimony violated Cheever's 5th
amendment.
5th amendment only prohibits use of incriminating statements at criminal trials.
Allen v. Illinois (1986) - Answer - SVP is not a criminal proceedings and evaluation can
be used for only use of basis of commitment under the statute. proceedings are civil in
nature and miranda and self incrimination do not apply.
Rule 402(b) - Answer - Defendants disclosures are protected by attorney-client privilege
only when an agent of defense attorney. (this applies for expert working for the defense
and what information is provided during appointment).
US v. Wade - Answer - Held that a lineup or other face to face confrontation after the
accused has been formally charged with an offense is considered a critical stage of
proceedings; therefore the accused has a right to have counsel present.
, Ex parte - Answer - A proceeding brought before a court by one party only, without
notice to or challenge by the other side.
Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) - Answer - Defendants can have psychiatric assistance at cost
to the state.they do not have the right to choose the evaluator.
Used during competency evaluations
only allowed once
provided to both sides
only on capital and insanity defenses.
He killed a couple and said it was due to God.
HIPAA - Answer - Only applies to covered entities such as health plans. clearinghouses,
and providers who electronically transmit health information.
5th amendment - Answer - The Right to Remain Silent/Double Jeopardy, right to due
process
6th amendment - Answer - The right to a Speedy Trial by jury, representation by an
attorney for an accused person
common law - Answer - a system of law based on precedent and customs.
judge based law.
stare decisis - Answer - A Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand." Most cases
reaching appellate courts are settled on this principle.
uses past cases when controversies to common law.
En banc - Answer - the term used when the full panel of judges on the appellate court
hears a case. (federal cases)
writ of certiorari - Answer - An order by a higher court directing a lower court to send up
a case for review. 4 judges needed to gran cert.
prima facie - Answer - based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved
otherwise.
nolo contendre - Answer - A plea in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt
subjects the defendant to conviction but does not preclude denying the truth of the
charges in a collateral proceeding. It is also expressed as "no contest."
Beyond a reasonable doubt - Answer - The standard of proof used in criminal cases.
Must be 90%
with Complete Solutions
Bruce v. Byrne-Stevens & Associates (1989) - Answer - an engineer who testified as an
expert witness on behalf of respondents at a previous trial is entitled to immunity from
suit based on his testimony. Can't sue an expert based on testimony.
Murphy v. AA Mathews (92) - Answer - holding that witness immunity does not bar suit
against an expert who is negligent in the preparation of services.
Budwin v. American Psychological Association (94) - Answer - Psychologist who
testified in custody case and the mother filed complaint to APA that he failed to honor
his commitments to produce records and addressing limits of interactions in court and
testimony. Litigation privilege which protects people who testify in trial from liability does
not preclude sanction by professional organizations.
Deatherage v. Examining board of psychology (94) - Answer - Absolute immunity for
expert witnesses does not extend to disciplinary proceedings of a state licensing board.
In re Lifschutz, 2 cal (70) - Answer - Greater degree of confidentiality legally provided for
psychotherapy than for other medical treatment. Dr refused to provide testimony
regarding treatment.
Doe v. Roe (1977) - Answer - Psychiatrist entered an agreement and violated breach of
patient confidentiality. Psychiatrist wrote a book with detailed information therapy. while
names were not used, it was apparent who the patients were.
Commonwealth v. Kobrin (85) - Answer - Psychiatrist involved in Medicaid fraud. A
psychiatrist did not have to turn over notes that would reveal what a patient told him
however had to turn information about drugs prescribed, ECT and notes reflecting his
opinion about the patient's condition and progress.
Federal rule of Evidence 701 - Answer - If witness its not testifying as an expert, their
opinions need to be based on the perception of the witness and helpful to a clear
understanding of the witness testimony.
,Mens Rea - Answer - the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a
crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.
Menendez v. superior court (92) - Answer - The dangerous patient exception to the
psychotherapist-patient privilege is available when the therapist has reasonable cause
to believe disclosure is necessary to prevent harm. the tapes were disclosed as not
meeting the confidential clause due to harm others. only parts of it was used.
Rule 702 - Answer - the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will
help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue
Federal rule 704 - Answer - expert cannot testify where the person did or didnt have a
mental state during the crime. Experts cannot testify as to the ultimate issue on the
case.
Estelle v. Smith (1981) - Answer - CST evaluations only introduced if defendant places
mental state into evidence. The state may not force a defendant to summit to a
psychiatric evaluation solely for the purpose of sentencing.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966) - Answer - 5th Amendment self-incrimination clause requires
government agents to warn suspects of their right to remain silent and/or contact an
attorney before questioning them when they are in custody. Statements made without
Miranda Warning are inadmissible in court (like the exclusionary rule for evidence)
Kansas v. Cheever (2013) - Answer - (Cheever killed a cop while on meth.)
Result of an evaluation is waived if any defense use of mental health professional is
used at trial including alchohol intoxication.
He alleged that the admission of the psychiatrist testimony violated Cheever's 5th
amendment.
5th amendment only prohibits use of incriminating statements at criminal trials.
Allen v. Illinois (1986) - Answer - SVP is not a criminal proceedings and evaluation can
be used for only use of basis of commitment under the statute. proceedings are civil in
nature and miranda and self incrimination do not apply.
Rule 402(b) - Answer - Defendants disclosures are protected by attorney-client privilege
only when an agent of defense attorney. (this applies for expert working for the defense
and what information is provided during appointment).
US v. Wade - Answer - Held that a lineup or other face to face confrontation after the
accused has been formally charged with an offense is considered a critical stage of
proceedings; therefore the accused has a right to have counsel present.
, Ex parte - Answer - A proceeding brought before a court by one party only, without
notice to or challenge by the other side.
Ake v. Oklahoma (1985) - Answer - Defendants can have psychiatric assistance at cost
to the state.they do not have the right to choose the evaluator.
Used during competency evaluations
only allowed once
provided to both sides
only on capital and insanity defenses.
He killed a couple and said it was due to God.
HIPAA - Answer - Only applies to covered entities such as health plans. clearinghouses,
and providers who electronically transmit health information.
5th amendment - Answer - The Right to Remain Silent/Double Jeopardy, right to due
process
6th amendment - Answer - The right to a Speedy Trial by jury, representation by an
attorney for an accused person
common law - Answer - a system of law based on precedent and customs.
judge based law.
stare decisis - Answer - A Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand." Most cases
reaching appellate courts are settled on this principle.
uses past cases when controversies to common law.
En banc - Answer - the term used when the full panel of judges on the appellate court
hears a case. (federal cases)
writ of certiorari - Answer - An order by a higher court directing a lower court to send up
a case for review. 4 judges needed to gran cert.
prima facie - Answer - based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved
otherwise.
nolo contendre - Answer - A plea in a criminal prosecution that without admitting guilt
subjects the defendant to conviction but does not preclude denying the truth of the
charges in a collateral proceeding. It is also expressed as "no contest."
Beyond a reasonable doubt - Answer - The standard of proof used in criminal cases.
Must be 90%
