Expert Consultation in Criminal Responsibility, Violence & Homicide Cases
Forensic psychology consultation for Indiana defense attorneys and prosecutors when a defendant's mental state is central to the case.
In the most serious criminal cases, questions about mental illness, intent, and dangerousness can shape everything from charging decisions to verdict to sentence. Attorneys on both sides need a clear understanding of what the psychological evidence shows, and what it does not.
Dr. David Lombard, PhD, is a licensed Indiana psychologist with more than 30 years of clinical and forensic experience. He consults with attorneys on criminal responsibility (insanity) questions, violence risk, mitigation, and the evaluation of mental health evidence in homicide and other violent felony cases.
These cases carry grief and consequence for everyone they touch: victims and their families, defendants and theirs, and the communities around them. Dr. Lombard brings to each one a steady commitment to accuracy, fairness, and the dignity of every person involved.
Consulting Services
Criminal responsibility (insanity) consultation. Early case review to assess whether a mental disease or defect defense, or a guilty but mentally ill outcome, is supported by the records and warrants a formal evaluation.
Review of forensic reports. Independent critique of competency, sanity, risk, or mitigation reports prepared by other evaluators, including methodology, test selection and scoring, reasoning, and fit with the Indiana legal standard.
Violence risk assessment. Structured, evidence-based assessment of risk for future violence, using recognized professional instruments rather than unstructured clinical impression.
Mitigation evaluation and consultation. Evaluation of mental health, trauma, developmental, and cognitive factors relevant to sentencing.
Homicide case consultation. Analysis of mental state evidence in homicide cases, including the defendant's history, statements, and behavior before, during, and after the offense.
Trial preparation. Help attorneys understand psychological testimony, prepare direct examination of their own expert, and develop well-grounded cross-examination of opposing experts.
Expert testimony. When retained as a testifying expert, Dr. Lombard conducts an independent evaluation and testifies to its findings.
The Indiana Legal Framework
Effective consultation starts with the specific Indiana standards the psychological evidence must address.
Insanity. A person is not responsible for prohibited conduct if, as a result of mental disease or defect, the person was unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct at the time of the offense (IC 35-41-3-6). The defendant carries the burden of proving this affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
Guilty but mentally ill. When insanity is raised, the jury or court may find the defendant guilty, not guilty, not responsible by reason of insanity, or guilty but mentally ill (IC 35-36-2-3). A guilty but mentally ill defendant is sentenced in the same manner as any other guilty defendant.
Mental illness at sentencing. The Indiana Supreme Court has directed trial courts to consider on the record what mitigating weight to give evidence of mental illness, looking at factors such as the defendant's ability to control behavior, overall limitations on functioning, the duration of the illness, and any connection between the illness and the crime (Smith v. State, applying Weeks v. State, 1998). Indiana's sentencing statute also lists posttraumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, and postconcussive brain injury as mitigating circumstances (IC 35-38-1-7.1).
Limits on expert opinion. Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b) bars witnesses from offering opinions on intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case, or on legal conclusions (Ind. Evid. R. 704). Knowing where that line falls shapes how a report is written and how testimony is presented.
Access to expert assistance. When a defendant's sanity is likely to be a significant factor at trial, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that an indigent defendant is entitled to access to a competent psychiatric expert to assist in the defense (Ake v. Oklahoma, 1985).
How a Consultation Works
Conflict check and initial call. A brief, no-cost conversation confirms there is no conflict and clarifies the questions counsel needs answered.
Engagement. A written retention agreement defines the role (consulting or testifying), scope, and fee structure.
Records review. Discovery, prior evaluations, test data, treatment and school records, jail records, and recorded statements are reviewed.
Preliminary findings. Dr. Lombard shares his initial impressions with counsel verbally, including the strengths and weaknesses of the psychological evidence on both sides.
Further work, as directed. Depending on the case, this may include an evaluation of the defendant, a written report, a critique of another expert's work, or trial preparation.
Testimony, if retained to testify. Dr. Lombard testifies at hearings, trial, or sentencing as needed.
Standards and Objectivity
All consultation and evaluation work follows the APA Ethics Code and the APA Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology. Those guidelines ask forensic psychologists to be impartial and fair whichever side retains them, to base opinions on adequate data and sound methods, and to acknowledge the limits of what the data can show.
Dr. Lombard consults for defense and prosecution alike. Retaining counsel can expect a candid assessment of the psychological evidence, including findings that do not support their position. That candor is what makes a consultant useful before trial and what makes a testifying expert credible at trial.
For Defense Counsel and Prosecutors
Dr. Lombard accepts consulting and testifying engagements in criminal cases throughout Indiana, with a particular focus on northeast Indiana. Early involvement is usually most valuable: a consultation before notice of an insanity defense is filed, or before a plea offer is evaluated, can save time, cost, and missteps later.
When you call, it helps to have the charges, the procedural posture, upcoming deadlines, and any existing evaluations at hand.
Discuss a Case → Contact Us
In the hardest cases, the truth about a person's mind deserves to be told carefully and fairly. That is the work this practice is committed to.
Frequently Asked Questions
Do you work for both the defense and the prosecution? Yes. Dr. Lombard consults for either side, and his opinions do not change based on who retains him.
What is the difference between insanity and guilty but mentally ill in Indiana? A finding of not responsible by reason of insanity means the defendant could not appreciate the wrongfulness of the conduct because of a mental disease or defect. A guilty but mentally ill finding means the defendant was mentally ill at the time of the crime but did not meet the insanity standard, and is sentenced like any other guilty defendant.
Can a psychologist testify that the defendant lacked intent? Not directly. Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b) bars opinions on intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case. A psychologist can, however, describe the defendant's mental condition and how it affected perception and functioning, leaving the ultimate conclusion to the judge or jury.
Can you review another expert's report without evaluating the defendant? Yes. A records-based review can assess whether another evaluator's methods, testing, and reasoning are sound and consistent with the Indiana standard. The review will clearly state what it can and cannot conclude without a direct evaluation.
When should we bring in a consultant? As early as possible, ideally before notice of an insanity defense is filed, before a plea decision, or before the opposing expert's report arrives.
How are fees structured? Dr. Lombard’s hourly rate is $300. We request a retainer amount of $2,000. There are separate rates for travel and testimony.
References
Indiana Code 35-41-3-6 (mental disease or defect). Justia
Indiana Code 35-36-2 (insanity defense procedure; guilty but mentally ill). Justia
Indiana Code 35-38-1-7.1 (aggravating and mitigating circumstances). Justia
Indiana Rules of Evidence, Rule 704 (opinion on an ultimate issue). rules.incourts.gov
Smith v. State (Ind.), applying Weeks v. State, 697 N.E.2d 28 (Ind. 1998). FindLaw
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (1985). Justia
American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. apa.org/ethics/code
American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. apa.org/practice/guidelines/forensic-psychology