The transition from the therapy room to the criminal courtroom is one of the most consequential shifts a mental health professional can make. In the adversarial legal system, the forensic psychologist’s role is no longer centered on treatment, alliance, or clinical utility. Instead, opinions are scrutinized for their scientific admissibility, reliability, and usefulness to the trier of fact.
For modern forensic practice, the governing framework for this scrutiny is the Daubert standard, a set of criteria that places the trial judge in the role of gatekeeper, responsible for excluding unreliable expert testimony. Understanding Daubert is not an academic exercise or a concern reserved for appellate attorneys. It is foundational to how forensic opinions are constructed, defended, and ultimately evaluated in criminal court.Preparing opinions without Daubert literacy exposes the forensic psychologist to exclusion, credibility erosion, or damaging cross-examination. Preparing with Daubert in mind, by contrast, promotes disciplined reasoning, ethical clarity, and defensible testimony. This post examines what Daubert requires, how it is applied in criminal court, and what forensic psychologists must do to ensure their opinions withstand both legal and psychological scrutiny.