As forensic psychologists testifying in criminal court, our credibility hinges on one central question: are our opinions grounded in sound evidence? Courts do not expect certainty, but they do expect disciplined reasoning, methodological rigor, and transparency. In adversarial proceedings, expert testimony is not evaluated solely on credentials or confidence; it is evaluated on whether conclusions rest on reliable principles and methods.
Sound evidence is not a vague ideal. It is a legal and scientific standard that judges, attorneys, and opposing experts actively interrogate. As forensic psychologists, we must be able to articulate not only our opinions but also why they are guided by best practices and supported by evidence rather than speculation.