Mitigating Factors

in Chicago, Atlanta, and Fort Lauderdale

Request Appointment

Dr. Steven Gaskell at Psycholegal Assessments, Inc. offers psychological assessment of mitigating factors prior to a defendant entering a plea or prior to sentencing. Call us today at 630-780-1085 or 404-504-7039 for a Free Consultation and more information about any of our Forensic Psychological Evaluations. Evaluations can be completed in Illinois, Georgia, Florida, and Arizona.

Even in situations where the defendant’s mental disorder does not meet the criteria for a not guilty by reason of insanity defense, the defendant’s state of mind at the time, as well as relevant past history of mental disorder and psychological abuse can be used to attempt a mitigation of sentence. Dr. Steven Gaskell’s evaluation and report is an important element in presenting evidence for sentence mitigation. A mitigating factors psychological evaluation can be quite helpful in plea negotiation and assists the defense attorney and the court to be able to understand factors that affected the defendant’s judgment, perception, or intent in committing the offense. The evaluation will often include some form of a risk assessment and may have treatment recommendations of how treatment and what type of treatment may reduce the likelihood of recidivism.

In Mitigating Factors at Sentencing cases, a defense attorney will ask for an assessment of his or her client's personal history and determine whether or not congenital, intellectual, educational, socioeconomic, or developmental injuries or deprivations have predisposed the defendant to commit a crime or could reduce their culpability. These findings may then be offered to the court in an effort to reduce the severity of the sentence imposed on the defendant. "Mitigating factors" refer to information about a defendant or the circumstances of a crime that might tend to lessen the sentence or the crime with which the person is charged. "Aggravating factors", refer to information about the defendant of the crime that may make the crime worse than similar crimes. Although such evaluations are typically conducted at the request of the defense, prosecutors may also obtain their own evaluator in order to gain an independent assessment or to challenge the findings of the defense expert.

Although each case is unique and may require additional testing or evaluation, most evaluations may include the following:

  • Review of official records related to the specific offense (e.g., police records, witness statements)
  • Review of background records and history (e.g., academic records, psychiatric/ psychological treatment records)
  • Relevant background information
  • Clinical interview of defendant
  • Collateral interviews, as necessary
  • Psychological testing
  • Psychological evaluation of malingering
  • Assessment of defendant's state of mind close in time, leading up to, and during the offense based on interview with defendant and collateral information
  • Diagnostic impressions
  • Future risk assessment
  • Summary of relevant mitigating and/or aggravating factors
  • Recommendations
Forensic Psychology Expert - Evaluation and Consultation

Relevant Landmark Cases

In Hamblin v. Mitchell, 335 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of a lower court because counsel did not thoroughly investigate the defendant's mental history in preparation for the sentencing phase of the trial. Specifically, the court stated that such investigation should include members of the defendant's immediate and extended family, medical history, and family and social history (including physical and mental abuse, domestic violence, exposure to traumatic events and criminal violence). This issue was further addressed in Wiggins v. Smith and in Bigby v. Dretke.


Areas of Expertise


Competency to Stand Trial Psychological Evaluation - Psycholegal Assessments, Inc.
Competency to Stand Trial
Competency to Stand Trial, also known as Fitness to Stand Trial, is imperative for ensuring that a defendant can comprehend the nature and objective of the legal actions against them and actively cooperate with their defense attorney.
Sex Offender Psychosexual Evaluation
Psychosexual Evaluations
Psychosexual evaluations of sex offenders incorporate a comprehensive risk assessment utilizing actuarial instruments and other research-supported risk and protective factors. Notably, recidivism rates vary among sex offenders, with a significant portion never being re-convicted post-initial conviction.
Criminal Responsibility Psychological Evaluations - Psycholegal Assessments, Inc.
Criminal Responsibility
Criminal responsibility or sanity evaluations are critical when a defendant’s mental state at the time of committing an offense is in question. These evaluations can be initiated by the court, defense, or prosecution to establish a clear understanding of the defendant’s mental condition during the crime.
Independent Medical Examination Psychological Evaluation - Psycholegal Assessments, Inc.
Independent Medical Exam
An Independent Medical Exam is conducted by a psychologist without prior involvement in the individual’s care, ensuring an objective assessment without a therapist-patient relationship.
Miran
Miranda Rights & Confession Issues
The role of confessions and self-incriminating statements in criminal cases cannot be understated. Confessions are produced in about 50% of criminal cases, where suspects who provide self-incriminating statements are 26% more likely to be found guilty and convicted (Leo, 2006).
Malingering and Deception
Malingering and Deception
In the legal realm, psychological assessments can be compromised by malingering or deception, with individuals potentially presenting themselves dishonestly during interviews and tests to influence the outcome.
Image
Mitigating Factors
Mitigating factors consider the defendant’s mental state and historical mental disorders or psychological trauma, even when these do not qualify for an insanity defense, to argue for a reduced sentence. The contributions of evaluations and reports by experts like Dr. Steven Gaskell are vital for presenting such evidence.
Guilty But Mentally Ill Psychological Evaluation - Psycholegal Assessments, Inc.
Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI)
Introduced first in Michigan in 1975, the GBMI verdict was proposed to diminish the success rate of insanity defenses, offering a compromise verdict that, while seemingly compassionate, subjects the defendant to the same penalties as a guilty verdict.

Video Conferencing Available!

Psychological evaluations are now able to be completed by HIPAA compliant video conferencing.
Request a Video Call!