Though Dr. Geffner has some pretty hefty credentials he also has some serious issues having been impeached in some court cases. Check it out:
1. His background is impressive, he is the Founder and President of the Family Violence and Sexual Assault Institute in San Diego, California. He has been a researcher and consultant for 28 years and has presented over 450 key note speeches.
2. Now the bad news- for him: (This info is from a comment made by ‘Nancy B’ on the ‘My Crime Time’ blog). Regarding the Case of Cyndie O’Rourke v. James O’Rourke the court found Dr. Geffner to be nothing more than a ‘hired gun’ for the Mother in this case. This was a divorce/custody case where the Father prevailed. Apparently the MMPI test found ‘maladaptive personality traits’ in the Mother and Dr. Geffner challenged the use of the MMPI test and even went on to recommend that the Mother file ethics complaints against the other mental health professionals in the case.He felt he was the expert and the others were out of their expertise. (Nancy B. shares a link for info. on the ‘My Crime Time’ blog). This indicates to me he will most likely imply the MMPI test is not valid in this case and Dr. Demarte doesn’t have the credentials that he does and her opinion is therefore inadequate.
3. Dr. Geffner testified that he no longer treats patients but devotes all his time to consulting work related to his specialty. He has been an expert witness in a number of cases in different jurisdictions. Though he has testified in a great number of cases he stated that he did not remember very much about the facts of those cases.
4. In a Texas case; Clark v. Collins, 956 F.2d 68 (5th Circuit 1992) the court found that Dr. Geffner’s affidavit lacked credibility, in part because it was based on hearsay information supplied by the defendant’s attorney with no independent verification. (Sound like any defense attorneys we know who believe everything their client says?)
5. The court also excluded the Dr.’s testimony in Hawaii v. French, 129 P.3d 581 (Hawaii 2006) involving allegations of child sexual abuse.
6. In State v. Supulvado, 655 So.2d 623 (La. App. 1995) the court limited most of his testimony as he relied mostly on the information supplied by the defendant and he testified about effects of brain damage on emotional functioning though he is not a medical doctor.
7. So I dug a little more and found this:
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). “[C]ounsel is strongly presumed to have rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment. Id. at 690, 104 S.Ct. at 2066.
22 The state trial court found that Dr. Geffner’s affidavit lacked credibility for three reasons: (1) the evaluation, which makes conclusions as to Clark’s conduct in 1987, was conducted five years later, in 1992; (2) Dr. Geffner did not review the court records or a transcript of the trial testimony; and (3) Dr. Geffner relied upon records from Clark’s childhood in Pennsylvania, with no records since 1976, and upon hearsay information supplied by Clark’s attorneys, with no independent verification of the information, and interviews with Clark. The state court further found that, even if credible, Dr. Geffner’s affidavit does not support a conclusion that Clark was either incompetent or insane at the time of the murders, or that he did not act deliberately within the meaning of the first special issue.
8. Oh, and did I mention he was an editor for Alyce LaViolette?
Should be a field day for Mr. Martinez!